S H 

m4 



T 



Y 



iLit '±o.4hA 5^'!- •'*'•- 






TO CURE DEFECTS IN AND TO VALIDATE CHAPTERS 52 AND 

54 OF THE ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF 

THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA 



HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES 



1.1^ S <Wf» HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS 
Second Session 



ON 



H. R. 11740 



MARCH 13, 20, and 31, and APRIL 3 and 7, 1914 



4W 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OmCB 

1914 



^ 






COMMITTEE ON THE TERRITORIES. 
House of Representatives. 

WILLIAM C. HOUSTON, Tennessee, Chairman. 



JAMES S. DAVENPORT, Oklahoma. 
JOHN T. WATKINS, Louisiana 
SCOTT FERRIS, Oklahoma. 
AUGUSTINE LONERGAN, Connecticut. 
JAMES H. O'BRIEN, New York. 
STEPHEN A. HOXV/ORTH, Illinois. 
WOODSON R. OGLESBY, New York. 
WALTER A. WATSON, Virginia. 
CLEMENT BRUMBAUGH, Ohio 



FRANK E. GUERNSEY, Maine. 
JONATHAN N. LANGHAM, Pennsylvania. 
BIRD S. McGUIRE, Oklahoma. 
ALBERT JOHNSON, Washington. 
CHARLES F. CURRY, California. 
CHARLES M. HAMILTON, New York. 
J. A. FALCONER, Washington. 
JONAH K. KALANIANAOLE , Hawaii. 
JAMES WICKERSHAM, Alaska. 



W. A Gathcart, Clerk. 



m S 1915 



^ 






TO VALIDATE CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF 
THE ALASKAN LEGISLATURE. 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives. 

Friday, March 13, 1914. 

The committes was called to order at 10.30 a. m., Hon. William C. 
Houston (chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. We have under consideration this morning a bill 
introduced by Judge Wickersham to cure defects in and to validate 
chapters 52 and 54 of the acts of the Legislature of the Territory of 
Alaska, approved by the governor of the Territory of Alaska, May 1, 
1913, and for otiier purposes. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sinnott would like to make 
a short statement. 

The Chairman. We will be very glad to hear from Mr. Sinnott. 

STATEMENT OP HON. N. J. SINNOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CON- 
GRESS PROM THE STATE OP OREGON. 

Mr. Sinnott. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
would like to present for your consideration a few communications 
that I have received from citizens of Oregon, and also one from the 
Portland Chamber of Commerce relative to H. R. 11740. These com- 
munications are protests against that feature of this bill which would 
result in the validation of the tax laws in Alaska in their bearing 
upon the salmon industry. The substance of the communication from 
the Chamber of Commerce of Po^an(^, Oreg., is that this bill will 
result in taxes, licenses, etc.,j^-qlii^rsf^^to four and one-half times as 
much as is paid by the fislmig* ii:?ber^sts operating on the Columbia 
River. There are people interested in Portland, who say it will raise 
their taxes from $4,000, which they pay now, to $10,000. There is a 
telegram of like import from the Warren Packing Co., of Alaska, 
the stockholders of which reside in Portland, and there is also a let- 
ter from F. M. Warren, representing the Alaska-Portland Packers' 
Association. Some time ago I communicated with the chairman of 
the committee the wish of these people to be heard. They informed 
me that they desired to come on and present their side of the case 
to the committee. Personally, I know nothing about the situation. I 
informed them I would endeavor to apprise them of the date of the 
meeting. I also spoke to Mr. Wickersham about the matter, and I 
understood that I would receive information in time so that I could 
communicate with them so that they might appear before the com- 



4 CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

mittee and present their side of the question, and I would like them 
to have an opportunity to be heard before the committee. It takes 
about five days to come from Portland, Oreg., and I would like to 
wire them to-day when they will have an opportunity to be heard. 

The Chairmak. I would like to say in reference to your communi- 
cation with the chairman of this committee, that I have some recol- 
lection of it, but lost sight of the fact that it was this bill we were 
to consider. It is just and right these men should have a hearing, 
and if you will indicate the time they will surely be here, we will 
have the committee meet for their benefit; that is, if it is within a 
reasonable time. 

Mr. SiNNOTT. I would like to have the chairman of the committee 
fix the date. 

The Chairman. Could they be here within a week? 

Mr. SiNNOTi'. I see no reason whey they should not. 

The Chairman. We will fix it then for next Friday. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. That will not interfere with our presenting 
such other evidence that we want to present in the meantime. 

The Chairman. Not at all. If you have anything to present now 
we will go ahead with the consideration of it, and the other people 
can get the benefit of it when they arrive. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. There is no objection to that. 

Mr. SiNNOTT. No. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Whatever we do in the meantime will be a 
matter of record and they can have copies when they come here. I 
would prefer, then, to take up another bill, the bill relating to the tax 
on railroads in Alaska. 

Mr. SiNNOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the communica- 
tions I referred to appear as part of the proceedings. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

(The papers referred to are as follows :) 

[Telegram.] 

Portland, Oreg., February ^, 1914- 
Representative N, J. Sinnott, 

Washington, D. C: 
We all ask your cooperation endeavoring defeat of H. R. 11740, introduced 
by Wicliersham, which tends to' more thaa double our now high taxes in 
Alaska, tending to force ours and other 'tanneries out of business. Argue for 
a square deal for this great industry. Our Alaska cannery now pays -$4,000 
tax. This bill would increase same to $10,000. 

EVEEDING & FaRREL, 

Per RoBT. S. Farrel, 

Alaska Portland Packers' Association, 
Pillar-Rock Packing Co. 



[Telegram.] 

Portland, Greg., February 4, 1914, 

Hon. N. J. Sinnott, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
We would greatly appreciate it if you can see your way clear to oppose 
Wickersham's H. R. 11740. This bill seems to validate acts of Territorial legis- 
lature relative to taxes imposed on canneries, which, in our opinion, are exces- 
sive, unjust, and discriminating, making this industry pay more in proportion 
to the business it does and to the value of its investment than it would in 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 5 

States where property has some value outside of the business itself. This is 
practically the measure which we wrote you about before, requesting that you 
kindly be on the lookout for. 

Feank M. Warken, 

Warren Packing Co., 

Alaska Portland Packers' Association. 



Alaska-Portland Packers' Association, 

Portland, Oreg., February //, 191If. 
Hon. N. J. Sinnott, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Mr. Sinnott: There has been called to my attention H. R. No. 
11740, introduced by Representative Wickersham, of Alaska. We have wired 
you to-day relative to this measure, requesting, if you can see your way clear 
to do so, that you kindly oppose its passage. This measure seeks to confirm 
and correct bills passed by the territorial legislature relative to the taxing of 
canneries in that District. 

As we wrote you before, we are already paying to the Federal Government 
taxes which, in the aggregate, are fully equal to what similar industries are 
paying in the States where property has some value outside of the purposes 
to which it is put. If this measure is passed, it would work a very great 
hardship on the industry and would obligate the canners to pay taxes from 
two to two and one-half times as great as they would be called upon to stand 
here. 

We feel that there is a disposition in Alaska to discriminate against the 
cannery interests as aliens, and to tax them entirely out of proportion to the 
mining and other industries of that Territory. If this measure is passed it 
would not only validate this particular act, but it would practically give to the 
Legislature of Alaska a free hand to do as they saw fit in the future. It is 
true that the canners have no vote in that District, and it would be a certainty 
that the legislature would always be after them rather than those whose 
principals lived in the Territory. 

We wish you would keep this matter in mind, and if there is to be any hear- 
ing on the measure it might be that we would be able to arrange to be repre- 
sented at that time 

Thanking you for anything you can do for us, we are, 
Very truly, yours, 

F. M. Warren. 
(Representing Alaska-Portland Packers' Association and Warren Packing Co.) 



Portland Chamber of Commerce, 

Portland, Oreg., March 7, l91Jf. 
Hon. N. J. Sinnott, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Sinnott: Complaint has been made to the commercial interests 
of the Pacific coast that the effect of H. R. 11740, Sixty-third Congress, second 
session, introduced by Mr. Wickersham, would impose extraordinary burdens 
oipon the fishing industry of the Alaska coast if it became a law. It has been 
stated by those who have investigated the subject that validation of the meas- 
ure attempted by H. R. 11740 would compel a portion of the northern fish 
industry to pay in taxes, licenses, etc., from three to four and a half times as 
much as is paid by fishing interests operating on the Columbia River. It is 
also presented that the effect of the toll-tax measure covered by H. R. 11740, if 
it became a law, would permit Alaska to discriminate in a most burdensome 
way against the labor imported into the territory to carry on the fishing in- 
dustry during the season when fish packing is in progress, this discrimination 
being wholly out of keeping with the customs prevailing between States of the 
Union, and evincing a spirit that might easily be construed as against the 
proper and normal commerce that has always maintained between units of 
the American Republic. In view of northern labor conditions it may be said 
further that the packing industry is dependent upon imported labor. 



6 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

We desire to urge, iu the spirit of a community bearing a close relationsliip 
to the commerce of all the North Pacific, the very highest protection and en- 
couragement for the fish industry of Alaska. Its enormous value to the masses 
of the world as a food supply, must be held supreme in American consider- 
ation. The cheap salmon, halibut, herring, and fertilizer sent from Alaska 
is of inestimable value to the whole people. Everything that the Federal or 
District Governments may do to make this industry less costly, insuring main- 
tenance of the enormous low-priced food supply, must be done. Instead of 
taxing the Alaska fish industry more than that of the States, we would urge a 
less tax, if possible, with the hope of getting artificial propagation established 
on a great scale, and making the expansive coastal waters a permanent fish 
supply of perhaps the grentest value to mankind of any ever yet opened. In- 
stead of taxing the fish industry to aid others of the northern Territory, we 
favor calling upon other industries to bear a portion of the burden that might 
fall upon fishing, where these other industrites have less food value. 

We also desire to emphasize the precarious condition through which the 
southeastern Alaska fish industry is passing. There, where the cheapest 
canned fish known to the American Continent has been produced, are seen many 
failures, because the companies can not earn a living profit on their investment. 
Additional taxes and burdens at this time might prove a disaster, driving from 
the business of producing food many other companies. 

The commercial interests of the North Pacific appeal for full, fair, open 
commercial relations between Alaska and the rest of the Union. We urge 
Congress, in exercising its powers, to view the Territory with reference to the 
maximum good for the greatest number of people. Extraordinary or repressive 
taxes or i-egulations should not be countenanced. All industries should bear 
their share, but none should be singled out for penalizing or repression. In 
establishing laws and conditions of the northern Territory we earnestly hope 
that these fundamental principles of equality in commerce and industry will 
be recognized. 

Sincerely, yours, 

E. C. GiLTNEE, Secretary. 



House or Representatives, 

Committee on Territories, 

Friday, March 20, 191 If. 

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. William C. Houston 
(chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we will first take up H. R. 11740. 

Mr. Curry. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there are some 
people on the road here from Seattle and other places who wish to 
appear before the committee in reference to this bill, H. R. 11740. 

The Chairman. Yes; we have the same information — that sev- 
eral parties desire to be heard and are on the way here from the 
Pacific coast. 

Mr. Curry. I have some communications from San Francisco, one 
of which is from the Alaska Packers' Association, in regard to the 
bill. A number of institutions there are very much opposed to this 
bill, and I understand that Judge Wickersham only introduced it as 
a matter of form and that he is not particularly interested in it. 

Mr. Wickersham. The gentleman is very much mistaken. I in- 
troduced this bill because I am very heartily in favor of it, and I want 
it passed. I think the gentleman is not acquainted with the situation 
or he would not make that kind of statement. 

Mr. Curry. Then I do not think there is any harm in waiting 
until the people who are interested in the bill and affected by it have an 
opportunity to be heard. I call attention to the fact that the AJaska 
salmon has kept the price of certain foodstuffs down to the minimum 
for a great many years, and that salt salmon and canned salmon 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 7 

constitute one of the staple articles of food that has not increased in 
price during all these years when the price of other foodstuffs has 
been going up. Sahiion is pretty well taxed, and I think these people 
ought to have an opportunity to come here and be heard. 

The Chairman. When do you expect them here? 

Mr. Curry. I do not know. They left Seattle yesterday. 

Mr. McCoRD. Mr. Dorr, who represents a number of Alaska 
people, requests me to ask you to continue the hearings for one week 
and to say that that would be entirely satisfactory. 

Mr. Curry. I do not suppose you would object to that, Judge? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Ycs ; I do object. 

The Chairman. Mr. Curry, are you through with your statement ? 

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir ; I am through with my statement with this 
exception : I want to state that I would like very much to have the 
hearing on this bill postponed until the people "who are personally 
interested in the matter can come here and be heard. 

The Chairman. Let me make this statement: It might be very 
well to proceed this morning and hear all the parties present who 
wa,nt to be heard with regard to the bill. The hearings will be 
printed, and those that follow later on will have the advantage of 
seeing just what statements have been made. By that means we 
might make some time by going on with the bill. 

Mr. Curry. I do not mean by my proposition that I would deprive 
any person present of the privilege of being heard now, but I would 
like not to have the matter closed up until these other people can 
come here and be heard. 

Mr. Wickersha3i. Nobody wants that done. 

The Chairtnian. Is there anyone here who wants to be heard on 
the bill this morning? 

Mr. Johnson. Wliat has become of H. R. 9770? 

The Chairman. It is pending before us as well as this bill. The 
Chair understood that there were some parties here who desired to 
be heard on the bill H. R. 11740, and for that reason it was called 
up. The Chair called up H. R. 11740 to see whether anybody was 
ready to go on with it. 

Mr. Curry. These people in San Francisco, the Alaska Packers' 
Association, did not know anything about this bill. They have not 
been notified about it. 

The Chairman. They ought to have known about it, and they 
ought to have exercised reasonable diligence to find out about it. 
Some of the gentlemen interested were informed bj^ the committee 
that they would have an opportunity to be heard, but they must not 
depend on the committee to notify them about the hearings. They 
must keep in touch with the matters themselves, and by inquiry 
ascertain what is the status of the matters in which they are inter- 
ested. Of course we can not undertake to notify every man all over 
the country of the actions of the committee. 

Mr. Curry. They supposed that they were in touch "vvith the mat- 
ter, possibly, through me, but I did not know about it. 

The Chairman. They could have ascertained. Of course they 
should have an opportunity to be heard. 

Mr. Curry. I do not see how these people could know about it, 
because as a member of the committee I did not know it. 



8 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

The Chairman. If they had written to the chairman of the com- 
mittee or to the clerk within the last few days they would have been 
notified. 

Mr. Curry, Of course I have no objection to the hearing going on, 
and the only thing I ask is that these people be given an opportunity 
to be heard. 

The Chairman. They shall have that opportunity. 

Mr. Wickersham. There are gentlemen hei*e representing them as 
attorneys. 

Mr. Bruner. Mr. Chairiiiau and gentlemen of the committee, T 
have no objection whatsoever,, so far is I am concerned, to having 
the hearing proceed. I appear on behalf of the revenue bill that was 
passed by the Territorial Legislature of Alaska, and I have no ob- 
jection whatsoever to a full hearing being had. I concur in the 
statement of Mr. Curry, so far as that is concerned. I wish to be 
heard upon this bill, but I do not care to appear before the com- 
mittee until the objections tt> the bill have been made public. I do 
not care to appear before the committee until the protests, such as 
they are, have been made public by the other side. 

Mr. Brumbaugh. You are for the bill, then? 

Mr. Bruner. Yes, sir. I will say to the memljers of the committee 
that I am very surprised that any objection has been made to the bill. 
There was none made to our revenue act at the time it was passed, 
and there was none made until a month afterwards. 

The Chairman. There are some attorneys present who are inter- 
ested in this matter. 

Mr. Britton. As representing the Alaska Packers' Association, 
knowing that this bill had been introduced, we filed a written re- 
quest with the committee asking that, when the bill was ready for 
consideration, we be given an opportunity to be heard and to have 
the chance to obtain the presence in Washington of the representa- 
tives of the associations who are familiar with the facts. We did 
not have an opportunity to wire those people a definite date for the 
hearing until a few days since, when we wired them a definite date, 
and they have made their arrangements and are either leaving to-day 
(>r to-morrow for Washington. There are other people who desire to 
appear. There is a delegation from Seattle and a delegation from 
Portland who are interested not only in the tax on salmon, but in 
the lighterage and tonnage taxes, and they are opposed to the bill. 
Those delegations have left Seattle and Portland and are now on 
their way. Personally, I would be opposed to going ahead with a 
desultory talk upon certain features of the bill. I am in favor of 
waiting until the people who are familiar with the exigencies of this 
business, who know what it means to iiave this tax imposed, who 
know what it means to be taxed to tlie extent that this bill proposes 
10 tax them, are here. * Wlien they are here, we can go into the mat- 
ter in all its phases, and get our statements in definite, tangible 
.shape for submission to the committee. Personally, I would like to 
have that feature of the case go over until these different gentlemen 
can reach Washington, and then we can all be heard together. 

The Chairman. There is no occasion for the bill to go over if there 
is anybodv here who wants to be heard. The people who desire to 
follow will simply have the additional advantage of having in printed 
form the statements of those who have preceded them in the hearing. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OE ALASKA. 9 

Of course, there should not be any unnecessary delay about it, but 
we can give such delay as will enable those who desire to be heard 
. to come here and appear before the committee. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I would like to ask Mr. Britton whom he rep- 
resents ? 

Mr. Britton. I represent the Alaska Packers' Association. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Wlio is coming for that company? 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Tempson. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Wlieii does he start? 

Mr. Britton. He starts to-day. The telegram states that " Timp- 
son will leave here on 20th." 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. What other gentlemen are coming? 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Dorr telegraphed that he had left Seattle, and 
there is another delegation from Portland leaving the following day. 

Mr. McCoRD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
represent the Pacific American Fisheries, who are interested in this 
taxation question. They are interested both in the salmon tax in 
Alaska and also in the tonnage tax and lighterage tax. Representa- 
tives from that countr}^ — people who are familiar with the actual 
conditions, and not attorneys — are on their way from Seattle now, 
having left there yesterday. I do not want to make any argument 
at this time until I can confer with the people who know the facts 
and the conditions. I want to confer with them first so that I can 
argue intelligently. Mr. Dorr, who represents a number of inde- 
pendent canneries in Alaska, is on his way here, and wired me that 
he left Seattle yesterday and that he would reach Washington on 
Monday. He requested me to ask the committee to postpone the 
hearing for two, three, or four days after he arrived in Washington 
so that he could make preparations. For that reason, and at his 
request and at the request of the people I represent. I ask that the 
committee continue or postpone this hearing until next Friday. Of 
course, I have no objection to Mr. Wickersham or anybody else who 
wants to be heard in support of the bill proceeding now, laut, so far 
as I am concerned, I want an opportunity to be heard after I can 
confer with the people who are interested. 

Mr. Webb. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I rep- 
resent the Northwestern Fisheries Co.. of Seattle, and I have a tele- 
gram from Mr. C. H. Buschmann, the secretary of the company, 
dated March 18, in which he says : 

Doit leaves for Wnsliingtoii to-morrow luoniintr. Warren, of Alaska Port- 
land Packers, and Gorman, requested by Alaska Association, make trip to 
Washington also. 

I concur in the statements of Mr. Britton and Mr. McCord, and 
ask that, so far as we are concerned, we have an opportunity to be 
heard later on. I would like to have an opportunity afforded Mr. 
Dorr to make a full statement in regard to the Alaska fisheries, as he 
is one of the most prominent men connected with that business, and 
he has also had a legal training and is now practicing law. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I wisli the gentlemen who have letter.s and tele- 
grams in regard to this bill would put them in the record so that we 
may have an opportunity of examining them. 

Mr. Johnson. I have so many letters relating to the salmon fish- 
eries matter that I do not knoAv how I can segregate those that are 



10 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

pertinent to this bill. A good many of them pertain to the treaty 
and some to the " dating of cans " bill. I have one in particular 
here in regard to this bill, stating that Mr. C. W. Dorr, of Seattle, 
was leaving on the 20th and would like to be heard two or three days 
after his arrival here. Then I have another telegram signed by G. B. 
Gill, secretary of the Halibut Fisherman's Union of the Pacific, con- 
taining 1,500 members; P. E. Olsen, agent Alaska Fishermen's 
Union, containing 2,500 members, and the New Seattle Chamber of 
Commerce, by C. B. Yandell, secretary. The telegram is as follows: 

Seattle. Wash.. March 18. IBlJt. 
Hon. Albert Johnson, M. C, 

Washington, D. C. 

It is vital to the fisiieries of Alaslvu that all possible infonuatiou shall be sub- 
mitted to Congress before any fisheries legislation is passed to thnt end. It is 
extremely important that the Albatross shall be placed at the disposal of rep- 
resentative of the Department of Commerce, who has been detailed to investi- 
gate those fisheries. 

We earnestly urge that the steamer be so immediately assigned as we think 
this be most important service it can now render. Please communicate with 
the Department of Commerce on this subject. This investigation should be 
thoroughly made before any further legislation is passed which in any way 
affects the fisheries of Alaska. 

G. B. Gill, 
Secrctai-y JIalibut Fishermens Union of the Pacific, 

(Containing 1,500 members). 
P. E. Olsen, 
Agent, Alaska Fishermens Union, 

(Containing 2.500 members). 
New Seattle Chamber of Commerce, 

C. B. Yandell, Secretary. 

I call attention to the statement in this telegram : 

It is extremely important that the Albatross shall be placed at the disposal 
of representative of the Department of Commerce who has been detailed to 
investigate those fisheries. 

I am not certain whether that refers to this bill or to other fishery 
matters, but I suggest that these salmon fisheries matters are com- 
ing up prett}^ rapidly. I have notified the people in southwestern 
Washington, who are interested, as rapidly as possible in regard to 
these matters, but this matter of the treaty that v^/as up the other 
day was news to them in a way, and as to this bill, I had only had 
notice of it one week ago. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. It was introduced on January 16. 

Mr. JoH]s;soN. But we have been busy with other bills. 

The Chairman. There is no trouble about giving sufficient time 
for these people to be heard. 

Mr. Johnson. I suggest that these two pieces of territorial legis- 
lation referred to in the bill, entitled "Chapter 52 (H. E. No. 96)" 
and "Chapter No. 51 (H. E. No. 98)," be put in the record this 
morning, and that report printed so that we can get at it easily. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I have them here, and I propose to read them 
to the committee this morning, if you will listen to me. 

Mr. Curry. Do you want the telegrams and letters inserted in the 
record this morning? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I would like to have them in the record. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 11 

Mr. Curry. I have received the following telegram from Frank 
B. Peterson, president of the Red Salmon Canning Co., of San 
Francisco : 

San Fbancisco, Cal., March 18, 191/f. 
Hon. Charles F. Curry, 

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C: 
If House bill 11740 passes, Alaska salmon canuevs here will be taxed five 
times without local taxes for salmon in warehouse, which would make six 
taxes. We are already taxed to death. This company, in existence 13 years, 
and not a dividend. Please use your utmost influence to kill this bill, and try 
your best to have committee await arrival of packers from here before mak- 
ing their recommendations. Writing members of committee fully giving our 
arguments. 

Red Salmon Canning Co., 

Frank B. Peterson, President. 

I will now read a letter from Mr. Henry F. Fortmann, president 
of the Alaska Packers' Association : 

San Francisco, March 13, lOt^. 
Hon. C. F. Curry, 

House of Representatives. 

Washington, D. G. 

House Bill 11740. 

Dear Sir: We venture to call your attention to House bill 11740, introduced 
on January 16, 1914, bj^ Delegate Wickersham, of Alaska, and now on reference 
to the Committee on Territories. 

By this bill two acts of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska are in- 
tended to be validated. At least one of these acts, viz: Alaska bill, chapter 52, 
is of great importance particularly to those engaged in the Alaska salmon can- 
nery industry, and we take the liberty of calling your attention to it with the 
view that when the bill comes up for consideration in the House you may, if 
you think it proper, be of material assistance to us. 

Very full hearings and consideration of Alaskan fisheries matters have been 
had before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Fisheries of the Senate 
for the Sixty-second Congress in connection with Senate bill 5856. The report 
of these proceedings is so full and complete that we think it only necessary 
to now very briefly call your attention to the salient features of the present 
House bill, particularly as these matters will, we hope, be fully presented to 
the Committee on Territories. 

When the organic law creating a legislative assembly in the Territory of 
Alaska was first prepared, it provided, by section 3, that the authority granted 
the Territorial legislature should not extend to revenue or certain tax measures. 
This I'l'ovision was, as we are informed, at the last moment changed so that 
it contained a further proviso to the effect that the legislature was not pre- 
vented from imposing other and additional taxes or licenses. 

As you know, Congress has made many rules and regulations concerning the 
control and management of Alaskan fisheries, and since March, 1899. a license 
tax of 4 cents per case has been imposed by acts of Congress and paid by the 
parties operating in Alaska. This is the only tax imposed by the TInited 
States Government on any of its fisheries. The act imposing this license 
charge states that "It shall be in. lieu of all other license fees and taxes." 
By this chapter 52 of the Alaskan Legislature, to which we desire to refer, a 
further license charge was imposed of 7 cents per case on red salmon and one- 
half cent a case on pink salmon. The charge of 4 cents imposed by the act of 
Congress being still collectible, the salmon canneries will be obliged to pay. 
if this legislation is finally approved by Congress, 11 cents per case on red 
salmon and 4^ cents per case on pink salmon. 

We have no hesitation in stating to you that these license charges are pro- 
hibitive, and they are vastly disproportionate to any other license charges 
levied by the Alaskan Legislature. 

Compared with the other license charges attempted to be levied by this 
Alaskan act, the charges on the salmon industry are entirely disproportionate. 
The industry which probably is more nearly like the fishing industry than any 



12 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

other is the uiiniug industry- This mining business is charged only one-half of 
1 per cent on the net income over and above $5,000 per annum. The average 
price for the 1913 pack of Alaska red salmon at California, Oregon, or Washing- 
ton shipping points was $4.25 per case, and this combined tax of 11 cents would 
therefore, amount to 2.6 per cent of the gross value of the product without any 
deduction for manufacturing, transporting, and marketing. 

This, however, is not the only unjust discrimination. We know that the 
idea is frequently advanced that the companies get their salmon from the waters 
of Alaska free of charge, and therefore that they should pay a larger proportion 
of taxes than a business which does not enjoy this gratuity. But as the reports 
before the subcommittee of the Senate show the value of the salmon ; that is, 
the raw product, in 191.3 did not exceed $1,250,000, whereas the value of the 
total product of Alaska canned salmon for the year was $S,500,000, so that the 
raw product is but little more than one-seventh of the value of the finished 
article. At the rate of 11 cents per case this tax will amount to over 17.5 per 
cent of the value of the raw product contributed fi'om Alaskan sources. 

AVe know that there has been a great deal of talk about the great profits 
realized in the Alaskan salmon business. As a matter of fact, this profit is 
purely imaginary. The great majority of companies that go into this business 
never pay any dividends at all and none have paid dividends regularly. The 
shores of Alaska are covered with dismantled cannery plants that did not suc- 
ceed. The risks of transportation, shortage of fish, and climatic conditions are 
so great that the itrofits of any good year are genei'ally eaten up by the deficit 
of the succeeding i)Oor years. 

We do not write you this letter with any view of avoiding a just tax on this 
business. We think that the character of this business being in navigable 
waters, subject to constant regulation and supervision by the United States 
Fisheries Commissioner and by Congress, should be taxed by Congress because 
these i-egulations may or may not materially increase the expenses and general 
conditions of oi)erations of the business, and if the Alaskan Legislature ctui levy 
taxes and Congress impose the regulations, the Alaskan salmon companies will 
soon be ground to pieces between the two. 

The particular suggestion, therefore, that we have to make is to submit to 
your mature consideration the substitution for this bill of another measure by 
which all taxes on the salmon industry shall be levied by and under the control 
of Congress; that the authority of the Territorial legislature be left unham- 
pered so far as ttixing the land and improvements are concerned. This latter 
tax must, of course, be uniform throughout the Territory, and thus there would 
be prevented the extraordinary discrimination and inequality which have 
already resulted from the deliberations of the very first legislative assembly. 

The Alaska Packers' Associiition is one of the few manufacturing industries 
that materially contributes to the prosperity of the Pacific coast in general 
and California in particular. It has many thousands of employees, most of 
whom are paid in San Francisco, and its outfitting is also for the most part 
done there. If these taxes are to continue with the ever uncertainty that the 
Ahislc.'i Legislature may increase them at any time, we can easily foresee the 
end of our business. 

Yours, very truly, 

Alaska Packers' Association, 
Henry F. Fortmann, President. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Ml". Johnson, do I understand that you have a 
telegram from the Seattle Chamber of Commerce against this bill? 

Mr. Johnson. That is the telegram I have read into the record. 
The telegram says: 

It is extremely important that the Albatross shall be placed at the disposal 
of the representative of the Department of Commerce who has been detailed 
to investigate those fisheries. We earnestly urge that the steamer be so imme- 
diately assigned, as we think this will be most important service it can now 
render. 

Then they go on to say: 

This investigation should be thoroughly made before any further legislation 
is passed which in any way affects the fisheries of Alaska. 



CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 13 

Now, that part of it refers to this bill. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I think you are doing the Chamber of Com- 
'inerce of Seattle an injustice. 

Mr. Johnson. Does this bill affect the fisheries of Alaska? 

Mr. WiCKERsiiAM. Yes; but only incidentally. I do not think 
the business interests of Seattle would' oppose this bill if they knew 
what it means. 

Mr. Falconer. I think there is a feeling out there that there 
was somthing secret in this commission bill or Root bill that passed 
the Senate. They do feel that they have not been in touch with 
what has been going on. The feeling is this, that we are here 
legislating on an industry in which they are intensely interested, 
and we are legislating at a long distance. The people of the State 
of AVashington and of Alaska are intensely interested in this indus- 
try, and it is certain that they were not posted on that particular 
bill. Mr. Johnson Avas not and I was not, and we hardly knew 
which way to vote on it. They feel out there that we are legislating 
3,000 miles away from the seat of operations, and naturally they 
want to be fully informed before action is taken that might perhaps 
operate to the detriment of the industry. Noav, I am inclined to be 
favorable to this bill, but I do believe that the people who are most 
directly interested in the matter should have a full opportunity to 
be heard. I do not think that would jeopardize in the least the 
chances of the bill going through. Of course, when a man has had 
a fair hearing and has had full opportunity to present his side of 
the case and is whipped, he is satisfied, but if he does not have a 
hearing and the fault is not his, he naturally is not satisfied. 

Mr. Bruner. May I s&j one word at this point ? I do not want to 
go into an argument of the matter, but, as representing the bills that 
were passed through the Alaska Legislature, I do wish to say that 
at the conclusion of the session Mr. Chilberg, now the president of 
the Alaska Chamber of Commerce, congratulated the legislature 
very warmly and said that for the first time in his experience he had 
seen both labor and capital treated fairly. Nine members of the 
legislature in order to go home came by way of Seattle, and the 
canners' association of Seattle tendered us a luncheon in recognition 
of what they claimed we had done on behalf of the Territory. That 
is the reason why I say now that I am surprised that these protests 
should come in here. I have a letter in my pocket from Mr. G. A. 
Teal, dated December 31. He was there through the entire session 
of the legislature. We held meetings there for about a month, night 
after night, at which all the cannery interests were represented, and 
also all the independent fisheries. The matters were very fully and 
fairly considered, and when we passed these revenue acts, it was done 
by unanimous consent and bj^ the concurrence of every member of 
ihe legislature. The letter that I have from Mr. Teal does not bear 
directly on this point, though I have talked it over with him before 
-coming here, and also with Mr. Fortmann and Mr. Heckman, who 
was their representatives before the legislature, with regard to the 
fishery interests. Therefore, I say that I am very much surprised at 
these- protests. Mr. Teal wrote me this letter, and I am willing that 
it shall go into the record. I will also submit his suggested amend- 
ment to the fisheries acts. I have not them with me this morning, 
but I can bring them to the committee at its next meeting. No 



14 CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

objection was made to the tax that we imposed in those acts, and I 
contradict the statement by Mr. Curry as coming from Mr. Fortmann 

•it we have been unjust in any way in the placing of the taxes. 

Red sahnon brings, according to the testimony before our com- 
mittee, $5.40 per case, and pink salmon from $1.75 to $1.80 per case. 
What we did was to make the taxes equitable all the way through, 
and there was no objection to our action at all. As a matter of fact, 
they were delighted with it. They were all represented there. Now, 
when the opinion of the Attorney General was rendered to the effect 
that we did not have the power to confer office upon the clerk and 
marshals of the United States courts, I can understand that they did 
not want to pay the taxes until they were obliged to pay them. 
When this matter does come up, I want to present the facts that were 
testified to night after night by counsel who were there representing 
both the fishermen, canners, and, in fact, all parties concerned. I 
do hope that a full hearing will be given in this matter, because it is 
of great importance to the people of Alaska to know what the law 
is and what Congress is going to do with us. Shall I read this 
letter? 

The Chairman. You can read it if your desire or insert it in the 
record. 

Mr. Brumbaugh. I suggest that he read it. 

Mr. Bruner. It is short, and I will read it': 

.\DMiRALTY Trading Co., 
Seattle, Wash.. December 13, 1913. 
Hon. Elwood Bruner, 

Army and Navy Cltib, Washinffton, D. C. 

Dear Senator : I am inclosing you a copy, marl^ed " Exliibit B," of senate 
joint memorial No. 26, passed by the Lesrislature of the Territory of Alaska, 
as you no doubt well recall, last April. Attached to it is a memorandum which, 
as its heading states, covers features in that memorial which are not practical. 
Also inclosed, copy of the committee report of a tentative bill, which was sug- 
gested by the fisheries Committee of the United States Senate some time ago, 
in which are pasted typewritten sheets showing the changes which seem prac- 
ticable, reasonnble, and right to a great number of the canners. IIow far you 
will be able to use any of this data, of course, can not be told from this end of 
the line, but whatever you can consistently do to further these changes will be 
appreciated. Those of us who know you feel assured that upon reading them 
you will see that they do fit into the bill and change and remove many objec- 
tionable features to members of the Alaska Legislature, as well as to cannery 
men; and certainly all that is desired by those of us who have worked over 
these changes is to have this fisheries questions settled in a clear, concise, and 
practical way that takes care of the interests of the fish and of all those who 
have money invested in the business or otherwise are interested in it. 

With very best wishes for your good health and the season's greeting from 
my conferees and myself. 

Tours, very truly, G. A. Teal. 

I would like, of course, to have as early a hearing as practicable. 
When the opinion of the Attorney General came out the collection of 
taxes in Alaska practically ceased and there was a very strong 
demand upon Gov. Strong to call an extra session of the legislature, 
and. in that connection, I would like to read his telegram : 

December 25, 1913. 
Hon. Elwood Beuner, 

Care Army and Uavy Club, Washington. D. C: 
Opinion Attorney General received to-day holds that legislature exceeded its 
power when duty of collecting taxes was placed on Federal officials. Decision 
has effect of absolutely stopping further collection revenue and practically 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 15 

puts Territory out of business. Do you advise special session legislature to 
convene about March 1; and if so, can you attend? 

Strong, Governor. 
To that I sent the following answer : 

December telegram received. Have personally conferred with Attorney Gen- 
eral, Key Pitman, and Houston, chairman of Senate and House Committees 
on Territories, and Delegate Wickersham. Believe that extra session can be 
avoided either by formal approval by Congress of revenue and poll-tax laws 
or amendment of organic act, or both. Advise you to withhold calling extra 
session until further developments. Roden not returned from Europe. 

I now submit the following leter from Gov. Strong to me: 

Territory of Alaska, 

Governor's Office, 
Jimcau, January 17, WUf. 
Hon. Elwood Bruner, 

Care Army and Navy Club, Washington, D. G. 

My Dear Senator: I beg to asknowledge the receipt of a telegram from 
yourself and Senator Freeding, in which you state your belief that an extra 
session of the legislature can t)e averted, either by formal approval by Con- 
gress of the revenue and poll-tax laws or amendment of the organic act, or 
both, and in which you also advise me to withhold the calling of an extra 
session until further developments. I sincerely trust that Congress will take 
the steps necessary to validate the Territorial laws passed at the last session 
or amend the organic act in a number of important particulars, so that the 
powers of the legislature may be so clearly defined as to admit of no further 
question. 

The opinion of the Attorney General, which you have no doubt read, followed 
by thejiecision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in San Francisco, which 
sustain's the position taken by the Attorney General, has had the effect of prac- 
tically estopping the collection of Territorial revenues. While I have not yet 
seen a copy of the poll-tax decision, I understand that the court also holds that 
no poll taxes could be collected for the year 1913, inasmuch a.'s section 2 of the 
poll-tax law provides that the commissioners as ex officio poll-tax collectors 
should perform certain duties " on or before the 1st day of ilarch in each 
year," and the law did not become effective until after that date. You will 
readily understand, therefore, that if this law is to be used as a source of ob- 
taining revenue hereafter it must be approved by Congi-ess before March 1 
next, or failing this some other means must be devised to give it life. Further- 
more, the decision of the appellate court causes me to wonder if the duties that 
the legislature imposed upon the governor are also to be disregarded. It is, 
perhaps, needless for me to say that I do not entertain this opinion, and if I 
did I would consider it my duty to discharge the various functions which the 
acts of the legislature committed to my charge until inhibited by a higher 
power. 

The conditions under which the Territory are now laboring are anomalous, to 
say the least, and a speed.y solution of the problems that have been developed 
is imperative. You are familiar with them and can materially aid in their 
solution. I have already written Judge Wickersham and Senator Pittnian at 
length concerning the situation and have forwarded them a proposed amend- 
ment to section 11 of the organic act, which I think would give partial relief 
at least, but even with its adoption I am of the opinion that the Territorial 
laws already passed would need the approval of Congress in order to meet the 
situation which has arisen. I desire to impress upon you and all the friends of 
Alaska in Washington the need of speedy action, especially with regard to the 
poll-tax law, inasmuch as under its provision certain blanks must be in the 
hands of the poll-tax collectors on or before JNIarch 1. These blanks have 
already been forwarded to the different precincts, but of course they will not 
\JbQ used unless the law is approved. 

I do not want to call a special session of the legislature except as a dernier 
resort. I am doubtful if a quorum of the legislature could be secured, and I am 
absolutely of the opinion that a 15 days' session, to which the legislature would 
be limited, would be altogether inadequate for the work that would be re- 
quired of it. 

Again, to expect members from the second and fourth divisions to make the 
journey to the capital is out of the question and would be unjustifiable, ex- 



16 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA, 

cept in the case of the gravest iwssible emergency. Tlie chief rtrain upon the 
Territorial revenues is caused by the maintenance of the Alaska Pioneers' 
Home, at Sitka, and whether or not the revenue laws be galvanized, by some 
means, into life, the $10,000 appropriation for the decennium will be ex- 
hausted long before the legislature meets in regular session, and this is another 
matter that requires careful consideration. 

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Senators Roden and Freeding and 
Delegate Wickersham. I will be glad to cooperate with you in any way that 
may be for the benefit of the Territory. 

Let me hear from you at any time, and with best wishes. I am. 
Sincerely, yours, 

J. F. A. Strong. Governor. 

Copies to Hon. Conrad Freeding, Hon. Henry Roden. and Hon. .James 
Wickersham. 

I will submit to the committee the inclosiires referred to by Mr. 
Teal in his letter to me. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM, DELEGATE IN CON- 
GRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention 
of tlie committee to the bill H. R. 11740, which was introduced by 
me on January 16, 1914. In order that the committee may have a 
clear understandino; of the matter which it embraces, I Avish to read 
the bill into the record : 

[H. R. 11740, Sixty-third Congress, second session.] 

A BILL To cure defects in and to validate chapters 52 and 54 of the acts of the Legis- 
lature of the Territory of Alaska, approved by the governor of the Territory of Alaska 
May 1, 1913, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That those two acts of the Legisla- 
ture of the Territory of Alaska, entitled "Chapter 52 (H. B. No. 96), an act 
to establish a system of taxation, create revenue, and providing for tlie col- 
lection thereof for the Territory of Alaska, and for other purposes," approved 
by the governor of the Territory of Alaska May 1. 1913, and " Chapter No. 54 
(H. B. No. 98), an act to impose a poll tax upon male persons in the Ter- 
ritory of Alaska and provide means for its collection," approved by the governor 
of Alaska May 1, 1913, be, and each is hereby, ri titled and made valid from 
the date of its respective approval by the governor of the Territory of Alaska, 
and all their provisions shall be held to be in full force and effect from and 
after the date of the approval of this act by the President. 

Sec. 2. That nothing in that act of Congress entitled "An act creating a legis- 
lative assembly in the Territory of Alaska and conferring legislative power 
thereon, and for other purposes," approved August 24, 1912. shall be so con- 
strued as to prevent the courts now existing or that may be hereafter created 
in said Territory from enforcing within their respective jurisdictions all laws 
passed by the legislature within the power conferred upon it. the same as if 
such laws were passed by Congress, nor to prevent the legislature passing 
laws imposing additional duties, not inconsistent with the present duties of 
their respective offices, upon the governor, marshals, deputy marshals, clerks of 
the district courts, and United States commissioners acting as justices of the 
peace, judges of probate courts, recorders, and coroners, and providing the 
necessary expenses of performing such duties, and in the prosecuting of all 
crimes denounced by Territorial laws the costs shall be paid the same as is 
now or may hereafter be provided by acts of Congress providing for the prose- 
cution of criminal offenses in said Territory, except that in prosecutions grow- 
ing out of any revenue law passed by the legislature the costs shall be paid as 
in civil actions, and such prosecutions shall be in the name of the Territory. 

Now, the committee will see that the purpose of that bill is simply 
to cure defects which were found to exist in two of the revenue acts 
passed by the Territorial Legislature of Alaska. 



CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 17 

Mr. Curry. Will yon put those acts into the record? 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. Yes. This matter was called to my attention 
by Gov. Strong when it was discovered upon consultation with the 
Attorney General that the defects existed, and, as a part of the rec- 
ord which I think will be very illuminating to this committee, I de- 
sire to read the opinion of the Attorney General and the correspon- 
.dence which Gov. Strong sent to me. so that it may be before the 
committee. The opinion of the Attorney General is as follows : 

Department of Justice, 
Washington, D. C, Noveinher 17, 1913. 
John Kustgard. Esq., 

United States Attorney, Juneau, Alaska. 

Sir : In your letter of June 27 yon ask the opinion of this department npon 
the validity, with reference to section 11 of the organic act of Alaska, approved 
August 24, 1912 (37 Stat.. 516). of certain laws enacted by the First Terri- 
torial Legislature for Alaska during its session hist spring. Said section 11 
provides, inter alia, that — 

" 2s'o person holding a commission or appointment under the United States 
shall be a member of the legislature or shall hold any office under the govern- 
ment of said Territory." 

The enactments concerning which an opinion is iiarticularly desired are : 

(a) Chapter 54 of the Territorial Session Lr.ws, imposing a poll tax upon 
male persons in the Territory, making the commissioner of each precinct ex 
officio poll-tax collector, and providing that he shall furnish bond to the Terri- 
tory and receive as compensation for such servi,:-es 15 per cent of all taxes 
collected. 

(6) Chapter 52 of the Territorial session laws, imposing a license tax upon 
trades and occupations conducted in the Territory and providing that the 
licenses shall be issued by the clerk of the district court, who shall give bond ; 
that such taxes shall be covered into the Territorial treasury ; and that United 
States marshals and fish commissioners, and their deputies, shall be license 
inspectors under the act. 

Specifically, the question presented is whether the provision of chapters 
52 and 54 which impose duties upon commissioners, clerks of the district courts, 
marshals, fish commissioners, and deputies, are in violation of the portion of 
the organic act above quoted. 

1. That the commissioners, clerks of the district courts, marshals thereof, etc., 
are "officers" can not be doubted. (U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 Wall., 385, 393.) It 
only remains to consider whether they hold " a commission or appointment under 
the United States." 

In order to determine this, it is not necessary to hold that they are " officers 
of the United States " in the sense of Article II, section 2, of the Constitution 
of the United States, for even if they be not such " officers," yet, since they are 
appointed by Federal officials to perform Federal functions under laws enacted 
by Congress by virtue of its power to " make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting the Territory " of the United States, they clearly hold " a commis- 
sion or appointment under the United States." In James v. United States 
(202 U. S., 401), the Supreme Court held that whether the Supreme Court of 
the District of Columbia was a constitutional court of the United States or not, 
it was "a court of the United States" within the meaning of Revised Statutes, 
714. Indeed, unless the broad language of section 11 of the organic act was 
intended to include such officers as these commissioners, etc., it is almost im- 
possible to say what officers it was intended to include, since such officials as 
these belong to the only class which, as a practical matter, could fall within its 
prohibition. 

2. It only remains to consider whether a requirement that these officers shall 
perform the duties imposed on them by the legislation of the Alaska Assembly 
above mentioned, is contrary to the letter or spirit of section 11 of the organic 
act as in effect compelling them to become officers of the Territory. 

The case of tlie commissioner under chapter 54 seems a clear one. He is 
required to work under rules and regulations promulgated by the treasurer of 
the Territory, to whom he is to report and render accounts; to furnish bond to 
the Territory, to be approved by the territorial treasurer; and his compensation 

43576—14 2 



18 CHAPTERS 52 AXD 54: OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

is fixed by the statute. Within all the definitious, this is sufficient to constitute an 
office. (United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall., 385, 393; United States r. Germaine, 
99 U. S., 508.) 

The case of the clerks, marshals, and fish commissioners differs in that the 
statute provides no compensation for those officers. Emolument, however, is 
not necessary to constitute an office. (29 Cvc, 1366; Clark r. Stnnley, 66 
N. C, 59; Hendricks v. State. 20 Tex. Civ. App., 178; Dickson v. People, 17 111., 
191 ; Mechem, Public Officers, sec. 7. ) 

The clerk is required to give bond to the Territory in such amount as the 
treasurer shall require, and to cover into the Territorial treasury the taxes col- 
lected under such rules and regulations as the treasurer may prescribe. Under 
the above authorities this undoubtedlj' constitutes an office. 

The marshals and fish commissioners and their deputies are given power 
to go upon premises and examine books, pajiers, and other documents of any 
person. Arm, or corporation whom they suspect of evading the act ; and upon 
discovering any such violations to file a complaint, arrest the offender, and 
take him before the United States commissioner for trial. This also amounts 
to an office; and the mere fact that they are not required to take oath or give 
bond is quite immaterial. (Mechem, Public Officers, sees. 6. 263.) 

It has been suggested, however, that in the case of the clerk of the district 
court, chapter 52 of the sessions laws merely imposes additional duties of the 
same nature as those required of him by the act of June 6, 1900, section 7 
(31 Stat., 321), and therefore does not constitute the creation of a new office. 
And this same argument seems to apply to some, if not all, of the other officers 
concerned. 

The act of 1900 does impose upon the clerk the duty of collecting certain 
occupation taxes imposed by that act and issuing the licenses thereunder. 
These duties, however, and the other outside duties now or formerly imposed 
upon the clerks, etc.. were imposed by Congress directly upon officers ap- 
pointed to perform functions created by Congress — an additional imposition 
which Congress, it may be assumed, has power to make — while the present 
duties are imposed by the Territorial legislature upon Federal officials, and are 
duties, official in their nature, which, if not performed by them, must be per- 
formed by officers created and commissioned directly under Territorial authority, 
in substance, therefore, it seems clear that the intent of the provisions of the 
session laws of the Alaskan Legislature is to make Federal officers also officers 
of the Territory, a thing contrary to the prohibition of the organic act. The 
fallacy of the "argument regarding the imposition of additional duties lies in 
the fact that the office of clerk of the district court and of marshal, etc., and the 
duties connected therewith, arise solely from the act of Congress, and are there- 
fore matters over which the Territorial legislature has no control. It is there- 
fore a misuse of terms to speak of the conferring by the Territorial legislature 
of additional duties upon such an officer. 

In this connection the language of the Supreme Court in the case of Car- 
rington v. United States (208 U. S.. 1, 7) becomes pertinent. In holding that 
an officer of the United States x\rmy, while performing duties incident to his 
military command, did not become a public official of the Philippine civil 
government merely by receiving money contributed by the civil government 
for use by him in connection with his military functions, it was said: 

" If Philippine legislation attempted to add to the immediate responsibilities 
of the soldier in the course and performance of his duty under the paramount 
authority from which that legislation derives its right to be. we should have 
to inquire whether we could gather from any act of Congress the intention 
to permit what might become the instrument of dangerous attacks upon its 
power " (p. 7). 

This passage suggests that affirmative legislation by Congress would be 
necessary to confer upon a territorial government the power of adding to the 
duties of a Federal officer. In the present case there is not only an utter ab- 
sence of such affirmative permission, but a distinct negation of its existence. 

The deputy marshals and deputy fish commissioners are in no other case 
than their principals. Quite aside from the rule that a deputy can not per- 
form official acts which his chief could not perform (Mechem, Public Officers, 
sec. 570), it can not be said that the Alaska Legislature would have conferred 
such power and duties on the deputies without conferring them upon their 
principals. 

It follows that the legislation in question attempts to impose official duties 
under the government of the Territory upon persons holding commissions or 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 19 

appoiutments under tlie United States; and in so doing it violates botli the 
letter and the spirit of section 11 of the organic act, and to that extent is 
void and of no effect. 

Respectfully. J. C. McRevnolds. 

AttoriH'!/ (leiieidl. 

And the letters from Gov. Strong are as follows: 

Territory of Alaska, Governor's Office, 

Juneau. Dcvcmhvr 29. 1913. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate from Alaska, House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Judge : An opinion by the Attorney General received here a few days 
since has the effect of suspending the operation of llie revenue laws passed by 
the Territorial legislature. This opinion is the result of a request made by 
United States Attorney Rustgard on June 27 last, with reference to the inter- 
pretation to be put upon section 11 of the organic act of Alaska, approved 
August 24. 1912. For your further information you will be able to secure a 
copy of the opinion from the Department of Justice. . 

You will readily understand that this oi)iniou is a sort of body l)low to the 
Territory, inasmuch as it deprives the Territory of the agencies provided 
by chapters 52 and 54 of the Territorial session laws for the collection of 
taxes, and without revenue the Territory is put out of commission to all in- 
tents and purposes. I do not want to call a special session of the legislature 
as, in my opinion, it would be well nigh calamitous in view of the facts that the 
session would be limited to 15 days, the great distances that a considerable 
number of the members would have to travel, the heavy ex]»enses to which 
they would be subjected, which their mileage and per diem allowances would 
scarcely cover, and furthermore I fear it would be found impossible to se- 
cure a quorum. A 15 days' session would be absolutely insutticient to draft 
and enact a comprehensive and detailed system of taxation sueli as I believe 
would be necessary in view of the attitude of the Department of Justice in the 
matter of imposing additional duties on Federal officials by the legislature. 
The logical course for the Territory to pursue under the circumstances will be 
to insist upon more complete autonomy which will include the right to all in- 
come from all sources within the Territory, except that received from cus- 
toms and internal revenue, to be collected and disbursed by the people of the 
Territory through the legislature. This position is accentuated by the fact that 
a decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury requires the Territory to pay 
all costs of suits, etc., brought in the district court by the Territory in the 
enforcement of Territorial laws. A case is now pending on ajipeal to the 
circuit court of appeals at San Francisco, which has for its purpose the test- 
ing of the provisions of the poll-tax law, the points raised by the appellant, 
I understand, being identical to those involved in the opinion rendered by 
the Attorney General. It, of course, is possible that the law may be sustained 
by the appellate court, but of this I am doubtful. 

It has occurred to me that temporary relief at least might be had through 
direct action of Congress. Do you think this could be done; that is. would it 
be possible to induce Congress to pass a special act imposing the additional 
duties on Federal officers in Alaska contemplated by chapters 52 and 54 of the 
Territorial session laws? In this connection I may add that some of these 
officials have shown a willingness to discharge and have discharged these duties, 
and several thousands of dollars in taxes, principally poll taxes, have been 
collected. 

If such action by Congress could be secured it would answer temporarily, or 
until the next regular session of the legislature in March, 1915. The revenues 
that can be derived by the Territory, if given the agencies or instruments to 
collect them, would be sufficient to meet the fixed charges of tlie Territory in 
the interim ; that is, provided that the validity of the Territorial revenue law 
is sustained by the higher courts. The heaviest item of expense is that for the 
maintenance of the Pioneer's Home, at Sitka, which must be closed in the near 
future unless revenue for its support is forthcoming, and some 30 helpless old 
men will be turned adrift. 

Section 6 of the organic act authorizes the governor to convene the legislature 
in extraordinary session for a period not to exceed 15 days when j-equested to 
do so by the President of the United States, or when public danger or neces- 
sity may require it. This, I take it, would require a special appropriation by 



20 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

Congress. However, as I have stated above, in my opinion an extraordinary 
session should be called only as a last resort. 

I vpould esteem it a favor to have your views upon the different matters 
herein touched upon at your earliest convenience. 
Very truly, yours, 

J. F. A. Strong, Governor. 

The next letter, dated December 30, 1913, is as f oHoavis : 

TlRRlTOHY OF ALASKA. 

Uoveknor's Office, 
Jiiucau, Drccnihcr 30, 1913. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate from Alaska, House of Reprcsentailvcs, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Judge: Since writing you yesterday on tlie subject matter of tlie Attor- 
ney General's opinion. I have had a talk with Mr. J. H. Cobb as to the effect 
of that opinion, and he submits that it is far-reaching and might be construed 
as preventing the governor from discharging certain duties imposed upon him 
by the legislature, though clearly this was not the intention of Congress when 
the organic act was enacted. Mr. Cobb has drafted the following proviso to 
section 11 of the organic act, which is herewith submitted for your con- 
sideration : 



" [rroviso to section 11 of organic act.] 



" Provided. That nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent 
the courts now existing or that may be hereafter created in said Territory from 
enforcing within their respective jurisdictions all laws passed by the legislature, 
within the powers conferred upon it, the same as if such laws were passed by 
Congress: nor to i)revent the legislature passing h-ws imposing additional duties, 
not inconsistent with the present duties of their l•especti^•e offices, upon the 
governor, marshals, deputy marshals, clerks of the district courts, and United 
States commissioners acting as justices of the peace and judges of probate 
courts, and providing the necessary expenses of performing such duties. And 
in the prosecuting oif all crimes denounced by Territorial laws the costs shall 
be paid the same as is now or may hereafter be provided by act of Congress 
providing for the prosecution of criminal offenses in said Territory, except that 
in prosecutions growing out of any revenue law passed by the legislature 
the costs sliall be paid as in civil actions and such prosecutions shall be in the 
name of the Territory." 
Very truly, yours, 

J. F. A. Strong, Governor. 

The next letter is dated January 3, 1914, and reads as follows: 

Territory of Alaska, Governor's Office, 

Juneau, January 3, 191It. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate from Alaska, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Judge : Supplementary to my letter of December 29, transmitting copy of 
proposed amendment to section 11 of the organic act, I would like to suggest 
for your consideration that it might be well to include within the terms of that 
amendment the district attorneys of the several judicial divisions of Alaska, 
and also a clause ratifying the acts already performed by certain Federal 
officials in connection with the revenue laws of the Territory. Of course, I am 
making this suggestion on the assumption that you will consider it feasible to 
endeavor to have Congress enact the amendment suggested, or some other that 
will cure the apparent defects and remedy the existing condition. 
I am also writing Senator Pittman a letter of similar tenor. 
Very truly, yours, 

J. F. A. Strong, Governor. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a number of editorials from news- 
papers there along the line of these defects, and the attempt to cure 
them, etc., but I think the governor's letters, being official, fully cover 
the matter, and would not be aided by quoting the newspaper edi- 
torials, telegrams, etc. I only mention them to show you how great 



CHAPTEKS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 21 

an interest is being taken in the Territory in the situation in which 
the Territory finds itself with regard to its income in support of 
■ Government. 

Now, I have another letter from the governor, dated January 30, 
1914, which reads as follows: 

Territory of Alaska, Governor's Office. 

Juneau, January 30, 1914. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate from Alaska, Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Judge : I am iu receipt of your letter of January 17, together with 
copy of the bill introduced by you iu the House to cure defects in and validate 
chapters 52 and 54 of the acts of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaslca, for 
which I thank you. 

I have read the bill carefully, and it should meet the requirements of the 
situation. I have to suggest for your consideration that section 2 of the bill, 
imposing additional duties upon the governor and other Federal officials in th«» 
Territory, should include the United States attorneys and collector and deputy 
collectors of customs at the various ports, as the services of these officials will 
be needed in enforcing the revenue laws. I am not unmindful of the fact that 
the Territory needs an attorney general, but until such office is created and 
filled by appointment the services of the United States attorneys will be indis- 
pensable iu the enforcement of the revenue laws. 

May I ask you to give this your serious consideration? 
Very truly, yours, 

J. F. A. Strong, Governor. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have read the letters from the governor 
because they disclose to the committee the serious condition in which 
the Territory of Alaska finds itself. This committee is not asked 
by the bill which is presented to go into the whole general domain 
of fisheries in Alaska, and to consider a fisheries bill. This is not 
a fisheries bill; it is a bill to cure defects in those acts of the legis- 
lature passed for the raising of local revenue, and, as has been stated, 
when those bills were before the Alaska Legislature the representa- 
tives of these fishery companies were there, and they were heard. 
All of them understood what was done, and they seemed to be satis- 
fied with it, or, at least, I am so informed. I was not there myself, 
and I can only give that as information received by me from other 
people. There is a fisheries bill before this committee. It is a bill 
which was originated in the Senate, or rather, it is a bill which was 
put in shape by the Bureau of Fisheries and introduced in the Senate 
and later in the House. That bill was before the Committee on Ter- 
ritories of the Senate, and gentlemen representing the fisherA'' in- 
terests in Alaska were fully heard. The Senate Committee on 
Territories took a volume of testimony on the bill, and the bill has 
been reintroduced in this Congress and is now pending before this 
committee. 

The Chairman. AVlio introduced it? 

Mr. Wickersham. It was introduced by Mr. Flood. 

The Chairman. Was it introduced at this session of Congress? 

Mr. Wickersham. It was introduced at the first session of this 
Congress. That bill is pending before this committee, and it is a 
surprise to me that they should come here to fight this revenue bill 
for Alaska. I had supposed that matters involved in this bill were 
settled back in Alaska, where the people who are interested in the 
industry had full opportunity to present their side of the matter. 
The bills were considered before the Alaska Legislature, in sight 



22 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA, 

of their canneries, so to speak, and all parties had full opportunity 
to be heard, and all of them then seemed to be satisfied. 

Mr. CuRRF. It was simply forced through. The United States 
Government has taxed this industry as much as it ought to be taxed, 
because 4 per cent is a pretty good tax on any industry. The United 
States Government imposes that tax 

Mr. WicKERSHAM (iuterposiug) . Of course, if we are to go into 
the full consideration of the fishing laws of Alaska — if the com- 
mittee is to do that — -we will have to prepare ourselves for it. 

Mr. Curry. I think that question was gone into by the subcom- 
mittee of the Senate Committee on Territories last year, and I sug- 
gest that the chairman of this committee procure copies of the hear- 
ings before the Senate committee last year. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. The Senate committee held extensive hearings 
on that subject. 

Mr. Brujibauoh. What have you to say in regard to the proposi- 
tion that this tax Avould raise the price of a food product to the people 
of this country? 

Mr. WiCKERSiiAM. It will not do so at all. The price of salmon is 
fixed by the gentlemen from whom ISIr. Curry presented a letter. 
The price is fixed by Mr. Fortmann's company. The price is fixed 
in New York and not in Alaska. These revenue measures will not 
have the eifect of increasing the price, because the price is fixed by the 
Fish Trust of the Pacific coast. 

Mr. BRrMr.Ai'(;ii. Do you mean to say that the price of salmon is 
fixed by that company? 

Mr. Wtckersham. Absolutely. The Alaska Packers Association 
is the Fish Trust and fixes the price. 

]\Ir. Curry. I will have to state in the record that that is a state- 
ment which is made without any basis of fact. There are a number 
of corporations aside from the Alaska Packers Association engaged 
in this business. That is only one. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. That is the Alaska Packers Association 

Mr. CuR:n- (interposing). It is not located in Seattle, but it has a 
substation up there, so that it is indirectly one of your constituents 
also. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. One of my constituents? 

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir; Seattle is your home. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I think the gentleman owes Seattle an apology. 
I never resided in Seattle a day in my life. 

Mr. Curry. Well, at Taconia. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I liave not lived at Tacoma for 14 3'^ears. I 
represent the Territory of Alaska, Avhich is deeply interested in this 
matter. 

Mr. Curry. I am also interested in having things done right. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Then you must make correct statements of fact 
yourself. 

Mr. Curry. That is what I am ti\ying to do. 

jMr. WiCKERSHAM. I do not live in Seattle, and your statement 
that I do is without any foundation in fact, and I resent it. 

Mr. Curry. Well, Tacoma is pretty nearly as good a place as 
Seattle. 



CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 23 

Mr. AViCKKKSHAM. I do not live in Taconui. I live in Alaska and 
I represent the people of Alaska, as I will show you before I get 
, through with these fishing people. 

Mr. CiKRY. I have not made up my mind on this bill. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. You seem to have done so by coming here mak- 
ing statements in favor of the Alaska Packers' Association. 

Mr. Curry. I did nothing of the kind. 

Mr. WicKEESHAM. You did, and the record will show it. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order, and gentlemen will 
observe parliamentary rules in the discussion. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. The gentleman must not make personal state- 
ments. 

The Chairman. Let us confine the discussion to the matter be- 
fore us. 

Mr. Curry. There is no evidence that a Fish Trust has increased 
the price of salmon, because they have not been increased in price 
for the last 15 years. If this company is a Fish Trust, they have 
not increased the price of the fish. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. I have evidence to show the commitee, and I 
will submit statements made before thet Senate Committee on Ter- 
ritories. 

Mr. Curry. I want to see that hearing. 

The Chairman. I suppose Ave can get those hearings. I will en- 
deavor to have each member of the committee supplied with a copy 
of them. 

Mr. Falconer. Relative to the point Judge Wickersham was dis- 
cussing — -that is, the delay in the matter of collecting taxes in 
Alaska — that is the embarrassing situation, is it not? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Falconer. As a matter of information, I would like to know 
how the tax is collected. Is it collected from the books or from the 
actual stuff? Is the collection made from the warehouse stock? 

Mr. Wickersham. No, sir; they make an official return of the num- 
ber of cases put up, and the tax is based upon that. 

Mr. Johnson. They are shipped through the customhouse? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes; all of them: so there is an accurate official 
statement made of it. 

Mr. Falconer. And that is the feature which you think necessi- 
tates early action on the bill? 

Mr. Wickersham. Yes. The Territory has no income, because sub- 
stantialh' the only revenues of the Territory were to be derived under 
these two acts. The Territorial acts imposed the duty of collecting 
these taxes upon officers who have been held to be United States 
officers, and for that reason the Attorney General held that the Ter- 
ritorial Legislature had no power to imposed any such duty upon 
them. He held that such an officer was not obliged to perform that 
duty. 

Mr. Hamilton. Couldn't we get at this much more intelligently if 
we had those two acts of the Territorial Legislature of Alaska in the 
record ? 

Mr. Wickersham. I have them here, and propose to read them 
into the record. 

Mr. HA:NriLTON. Have you the opinion of the Attorney General ? 



24 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I liave it downstairs in my office. The United 
States circuit court of appeals held substantially what the Attorney 
General did and upon the same grounds. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I will read these two chapters of the 
Territorial laws, and will then call attention to the organic act. 
Chapter 52 is as follows : 

Chapter 52.— (H. B. No. 9G.) 

AN ACT To establish a system of taxation, create revenue, and provide for collection 
thereof for the Territory of Alaska, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted yy the LegislatH/re of the Territory of Alaska: 

Section 1. That any person or persons, corporation, or company prosecuting 
or attempting to prosecute any of the following lines of business within the 
Territry of Alaska shall first apply for and obtain a license so to do from the 
district court or subdivision thereof in said Territory, and jjay for said license 
for the respective lines of business and trades as follows, to wit : 

Fisheries: Salmon canneries, 7 cents per case on sock-eye and king salmon; 
one-half cent a case on hnmpback, cohee, or chum salmon. 

Cold-storage fish plants : Doing a business of $ltX),000 per annum, $500 per 
annum ; doing a business of $75,000 per annum, $375 per annum ; doing a busi- 
ness of $50,000 per annum, $250 per annum ; doing a business of $25,000 per 
annum, $125 per annum ; doing a business of $10,000 per annum. $50 per annum ; 
doing a business of under $10,000 per annum, $25 per annum ; doing a business 
of under $4,000 per annum, $10 i^er annum. The annual business of this section 
shall be considered the amount paid per annum for the product. 

Laundries doing a business of more than $5,000 per annum, $25. 

Meat markets: Doing a business of more than $5,000 per annum and less than 
$10,000 per annum, $25 per annum ; doing a business of more than $10,000 per 
annum, $50 per annum ; doing a business of more than $50,000 per annum, $75 
per annum ; doing a business of more than $75,000 per annum, $375 per annum ; 
doing a business of more than $100,000 per annum, $500 per annum. 

Furs: One-half of 1 per cent of the gross value of any furs the product of 
Alaska exporteil from the Territory ; and it shall be unlawful and punishable 
under tliis act for any person to ship from the Territory of Alaska any furs 
without haying first paid for and obtained a license permit as herein provided; 
and no custom officer shall issue a manifest for nor postmaster receipt for mail- 
ing any furs unless the shipper thereof shall present a certificate for this license 
fee signed by tlie clerk of the district court of the division in wliich the furs 
were shipped. 

Telephone companies: Doing a business of more than $2,400 dollars per 
annum, one-half of 1 per cent of tlie gross volume of business per annum over 
and above the sum of $2,400. 

Transient and itinerant merchants, $200 per annum. 

Mining: One-half of 1 per cent on net income over and above $5,000 per 
annum. 

Insurance comiianies: A tax shall be imposed on all premiums payable on 
rislcs in tlie Territory of Alaska of 1 per cent of the amount of such premiums. 

1. In the case of such insurance premiums being paid to companies not 
licensed to do business in the Territory of Alaska, mutuals or Lloyd's, such tax 
shall be payable by the insured. 

2. In case of premiums paid to companies licensed and doing business in the 
Territory of Alaska, such tax shall be payable by the company receiving the 
same. 

Express companies : Express companies to pay 1 per cent of the business done 
by said express companies in the Territory of Alaska per annum. 

Lighterage companies : Ten cents per ton on freight handled or lightered. 

Public messengers, $25 per annum. 

Public scavenger, $50 per annum. 

Lodging houses. $10 per annum. 

Reindeer owned by white men, 25 cents per head iier annum. 

Fishing vessels : Fishing vessels propelled by mechanical power of over 30 
tons net and plying or fishing in the waters of Alaska, $1 per ton per aiuium on 
net tonnage, customhouse measurement, of each vessel. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 25 

Transportation: On every ton of freight shipped into or from the Territory 
of Alasliii by any transportation company or steamship line, per annum, pay- 
able through tlie customhouse at time of entry to be paid into the Territorial 
treasury, io cents per ton, except return shipments of caslcs, tauk;s, Icegs, car- 
boys, or other receptacles used in the shipment of liquids. 

Sec. 2. That the licenses provided for in this act shall be issued by the clerk 
of the district court or iiny subdivision thereof in compliance with the order 
of the court or judge thereof duly made and entered ; and the clerk of the court 
shall keep a full record of all applications for license and of all recommenda- 
tions for and remonstrances against the granting t)f licenses and the action of 
the court thereon: Provided, That the clerk of said court in each division 
thereof shall give bond or bonds in such amount as the treasurer of the Ter- 
ritory may require and in such form as the governor may approve, the premium 
on said bond to be paid from any funds in the treasury of the Territory of 
Alaska not otherwise appropriated, and all moneys received for licenses by any 
clerk of a district court in this Territory under this act, except the moneys de- 
rived from fisheries (one-half of which amount shall be paid by the clerk into 
the Territorial treasury to be made available for the propagation and preserva- 
tion of salmon and other fish in the Territory of Alaska and to be expended 
under the direction of the United States Bureau of Fisheries) shall, except as 
otherwise provided by law, be covered into the treasury of the Territory of 
Alaska, under such rules and regulations as the Territorial treasurer may 
prescribe. 

Sec. 3. That any person, corporation, or company doing or attempting to do 
business in violation of the provisions of this act. or without first having paid 
the license therein required, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and 
upon conviction thereof shall be fined for the first offense in a sum equal to 
the license required for the business, trade, ov occupation ; and for the second 
effense fine equal to double amount of the license required; and for the third 
uffense three times the license required and imprisonment for not less than 
30 days nor more than G months: Provided. That each day business is done or 
attempted to be done in violation of this act shall constitute a separate and 
distinct offense: Provided further. That in all prosecutions under this act the 
costs shall be assessed against any person, firm, or corpoi'ation convicted of 
violations hereof, in addition to tlie fine or penalty imposed, and for failure 
to pay such fine and costs such person, firm, or corporation may be imprisoned, 
in the discretion of the court, at the rate of one day for every $2 of said fine 
and costs: Provided further, hoirever. That in the event of any person, firm, 
or coriioration shall fail to pay the license required by the provisions of this 
act and shall further fail to pay any fine that may be imposed by a court of 
competent .inrisdiction, for such failure to so pay said license fee or tax 
required by the provisions of this act. judgment may be entered against such 
firm, person, or corporation, and process shall be issued for the enforcement of 
the collection of said judgment and in the same manner as judgments in civil 
proceedings. 

Sec. 5. All United States marshals and th?ir deputies as ex officio const;;bles. 
United States fish conunissioners and their deputies, in the Territory of 
Alaska are hereby made license inspectors under this act, and shall have power 
and authority to' go upon premises and examine the books, papers, bills of 
lading, and all other docmnents bearing upon any matters provided for in 
this act of any person, firm, or corporation whom they have reasonable grounds 
to believe is evading this act ; and if any United States marshal or his deputy. 
United States Fish Conunissioner or his deputy, as ex officio constables, shall 
find any person, firm, or corporation violating this act or any provision thereof 
it shall be the duty of said deputy marshal to go before a United States com- 
missioner, file a complaint in writing charging the person, firm, or corporation 
so violating this act with a misdemeanor, ;is provided herein, and upon obtain- 
ing a warrant upon said complaint to arrest the said person, firm, or corporation, 
and take him or them Itefore the United States commissioner issuing the war- 
rant for trial. 

Approved May 1. 1913. 



26 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 

Chapter 54 is as folloAA's : 

Chapter 54. (H. B. No. OS.) 

AX ACT To impose a poll tn.\ upon male persons in tlie Territory of Alaska and provid- 
ing moans for its collection. 

Be it enacted hy the Legislature of the Territory of Alaslai: 

Section 1. That tliere is hereby made, imposed, aiid levied upon eacli male 
person, except soldiers, sailors in the Tlnited States Navy or Kevenne-Cutter 
Service, volunteer firemen, paupers, insane persons, or Territorial charges 
within the Territory of Alaska or the waters thereof, over the iv^e of 21 years 
and under the ajie of 50 years, an annual tax in the sum of $4. to be paid and 
collected iii the manner provided in the following sections of this act. 

Sec. 2. That the commissioner of each precinct in the Territory of Alaska 
shall, on or before the 1st day of March in each year, set down upon such blanks 
as the treasurer of the Territory of Alaska may prescribe the names of all 
persons residing within his precinct subject to the tax herein provided for ; one 
of such blanks shall be transmitted b.v the commissioner to the treasurer of the 
Territory and the other shall be retained by him. At the time of transmitting 
cue copy of said duplicate list of names of the persons subject to the tax herein 
provided for within his precinct the commissioner shall cause to be published 
in at least one newspaper of general circulation published within his i»recinct, 
or if there be no newspaper, then by posting in five public places within his 
precinct, a notice setting forth that the poll tax provided for in this act is due 
and payable between certain dates, and that the payment thereof will become 
delinquent as provided in this act, and warning all persons to pay the same, 
and that in case of failure to pay the same, penalties, as herein provided for, 
will be imposed, and it shall be the duty of every person liable to pay such tax 
to pay the same to the commissioner within the time in which such notice 
specifies. 

Sec. 3. The tax herein provided for shall be ])aid between the first Monday 
in the month of April and the first Monday in the month of August in each year. 

Sec. 4. It shall be the duty of the commissioner to receipt to each person upon 
payment of the poll tax herein provided for, and the receipt so delivered shall 
he the only evidence of payment. 

Si':c. 5. Every person indebted to one who neglects or refuses, after demand, 
to pay a poll tax becomes liable therefor and must pay the same for such 
other iterson after s^n-vice upon him by the commissioner of a notice in writing 
stating the name of such person. 

Sec 6. Every person paying the poll tax of another may deduct the same 
from any indebtedness to such other person. The commissioner must demand 
payment of poll tax from every person liable therefor and on the neglect or 
refusal of such person to pay the same, he must collect by seizure and sale of 
any personal property owned by such person, and any property thus seized shall 
be sold as ]u-ovided by law for the sale of personal property on execution, ex- 
cept that three days' notice of the time and place of the sale shall be sufficient. 

Sec 7. It shall be the duty of the commissioner to collect and enforce the 
collection of all unpaid taxes by giving notice in writing to such delinquent, 
personally or by mail, and such delinquent shall pay a penalty of $1 in addition 
to such tax. 

Sec. 8. The Territorial treasurer must, before the first ^Monday in .March in 
each year, deliver to each commissioner in the Territory of Alaska blank poll- 
tax receipts, in book form with stubs numbered the same as the receipts, of 
100 in each book, a sufficient number for each commissioner. The form of such 
receipts and stubs shall be prescribed by the Territorial treasurer and shall be 
a])proved by the governor of the Territory. 

Sec 9. The commissioner shall, before entering upon the performance of his 
duties as herein prescribed, execute a bond to the Territory of Alaska in the 
sum to be fixed by the Territoi-i;il treasurer, which shall not be less than double 
the amount of money which will probably come into his hands under this act 
during any. one year. Said bond shall be executed with two or more sul-eties 
and the same sliall be approved by the Territorial treasurer; said bond shall 
be conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of his ofiice and the 
said bond shall be filed in the office of the Territorial treasurer. 

Sec 10. The commissioner shall keeji an accurate account of all moneys 
received by him under the provisions of this act, and he shall, not later than 
the 3 St day in September in each year, transmit the same to the Territorial 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA, 27 

tre;i surer. Such stntenient shall be verified by the nflidiivit of the eouiuiis- 
sioner to the effect that the same is in all respects a full and true statement of 
all moneys received by him under the provisions of this act; and after the 1st 
day of September in each year the commissioner shall, at least once in three 
months, file an additional statement setting' forth any taxes and penalties col- 
lected by him under the provisions of this act duiin.ir such period of three 
months, and shall transmit such moneys to the Territorial treasurer ;, such sup- 
plemental statement shall be made and verifietl. as herein provided for the tirst 
statement. 

The commissioner, for services rendered under the provisions of this act, 
shall receive as full compensation 15 per cent of all taxes collected, except those 
collected by action, civil or criminal, and 20 per cent of all delinquent taxes 
and penalties. 

Sec. 11. The Territorial treasurer shall make and prescribe all rules and reg- 
ulations to carry into effect the provisions of this act. 

Sec. 12. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall 
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a 
sum of not more than $100 nor less than $5, or imprisone<l in the Federal jail 
for not more than 30 days nor less than 1 day. 

Sec. 13. This bill shall take effect from and after its passage. 

Approved. May 1, 1013. 

Mr. "\Vickersha:m. Chapter 52 is the principal act. and that is the 
only one upon which I place any stress in this hearing. The other 
pct has so many other defects in it that I may not make any serious 
effort to have it validated. 

Mr. AYatsox. As I understood your reading of that act, one-half of 
the so-called fish tax goes for the preservation of the fish industry 
and for the propagation of fish under the administration of the 
United States Bureau of Fisheries? 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. Yes ; so the act of the Alaska Legislature says. 

Mr. Watsox. Do you know in round numbers, or approximately, 
what revenue is derived from that fish tax or has been derived from 
it under this bill ? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Xothiug at all has been collected under it. 

Mr. Brfner. It is estimated that $120,000 a year would be the 
amount of the tax. 

]Mr. WiCKERSHAJi. But nothing has been collected. 

The CHAiR:irAx. The revenue from that tax is estimated at $120,000 a 
year? 

Mr. Bruxer. Y"es, sir. I am speaking only of the tax on fish. 

Mv. AYiCKERSHAM. And one-half of that tax would be expended for 
the purpose of propagating fish and protecting them from extinction. 

The Chairmax. One-half of it would be paid to the Fish Com- 
mission here? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Oue-half of it is to be expended under the con- 
trol and direction of the United States Fish Commission. 

Mr. Falcoxer. What is the aggregate amount of the taxes now 
imposed on the gross sales of salmon in Alaska? It has been 
suggested that the fish is taxed six times, I believe, and T would 
like to knoAv what is the aggregate amount of the tax imposed. If it 
is 7 cents a case and they sell for $5 a case, what is the wholesale price 
of salmon? 

Mr. Brittox. It is $4.25. 

Mr. Y^^iCKERSiTAM. The price of salmon changes so frequently tnat 
it is hard to keep track of it. 

Mr. Falcoxer. Of canned salmon? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Yes, sir. 



■28 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

Mr. Britton. It changes from year to year. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. The price is fixed by the Alaska Packers' Asso- 
ciation in New York. 

Mr. Britton. I did not say that. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. But I do. 

Mr. Britton. I do not agree to it. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I do not care whether you do or not : the gen- 
, eral manager of the concern said so in the Senate hearings. 

Mr. Johnson. Does the retail price change all over the United 
States ? 

Mr. Britton. That is a matter I do not know. I do not know 
whether it does or not. I suppose, like every other food commodity, 
it has slight variations. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. To-day 41 per cent of the salmon packed on 
the Pacific coast comes from Alaska, and Alaska up to this time has 
not received out of this business more than about one-tenth of 1 per 
cent in the way of taxation. They have not contributed more than 
one-tenth of 1 per cent to the building of schoolhouses, churches, etc., 
for the development of the Territory. Of course, if the committee 
desires to go into that question, we will have to produce testimony 
covering that phase of the subject. 

Mr. Brumbaugh. Is there any danger of the supply being ex- 
hausted ? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Ycs ; the supply of salmon in Alaska is mate- 
terially decreasing, and in some of the formerly great salmon streams 
the supply has been practically exhausted. The Karluk Kiver, for 
instance, was once one of the greatest salmon streams in the world, 
but as a salmon stream it has been practically destroyed by the 
Alaska Packers' Association, because of their taking fish at the mouth 
of the river before they could go up and spawn. That is all in the 
record. 

The Chairman. I want to submit an observation for the considera- 
tion of the committee : We have two bills here before this committee, 
and the one that has been under discussion this morning was intro- 
duced for the purpose of curing defects in acts passed by the Terri- 
torial Legislature of Alaska providing for the collection of taxes. 
Now, it appears that because of the conflict of the acts of the Terri- 
torial legislature with the organic act, they are inoperative, or, 
rather, are invalid. It appears that those acts are in conflict with 
the organic act, because they sought to devolve certain duties upon 
United States officials, whicli, under the law, they could not perform. 
That is the matter now under consideration by this committee. 
Then here is another bill, H. E. 153, which is a bill to amend an act 
for the protection and regulation of the fisheries of Alaska. Now, it 
occurs to me that the discussion of the various tax regulations passed 
by the Territorial Legislature of Alaska really does not naturally 
come about in our consideration of this particular bill, which is for 
the purpose of making those acts of the Territorial legislature op- 
erative. I think this committee ought to determine now whether it 
is going into a discussion of all these regulations in the consideration 
of this bill, H. R. 11740, or whether it is going to reserve that for 
consideration when we take up the bill H. R. 153, which undertakes 
to regulate those things. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 29 

Mr. Brixton. Section 2 of House bill No. 11740 provides means 
for collecting the revenues imposed b.y the Territorial acts, but sec- 
tion 1 seeks to validate and confirm two acts passed by the Terri- 
torial I^egislature of Alaska which impose taxes. No%y, the two 
items are entirelj^ separate and distinct. This committee could 
very well take up the question of permitting the Territory to col- 
lect such taxes as it might properly collect without validating acts 
of the Territorial legislature that seek to impose taxes in conflict 
with the acts of Congress. That is the reason why we have to go 
into the question of taxation. We have to do that, because this bill 
seeks to validate two acts of the legislature imposing taxes, not pro- 
viding means of collecting them 

The Chairman (interposing). Do you insist that these acts are in 
conflict with the organic act? 

Mr. Britton. Most decidedly. The organic act fixes the tax upon 
salmon in Alaska and says that that tax shall be in lieu of all other 
license fees. 

The Chairman. It may be that we will have to proceed with this 
hearing to some extent before we can pass upon the question I have 
submitted to the committee, in order that we may know fully what 
we have before us. 

Mr. Britton. The committee probably has never had an oppor- 
tunity before to loiow what the Territorial bills provide. Chapter 
No. 52, as Mr. Wickersham read it, clearly imposes a license fee or 
tax upon various industries, and among other things a tax of 7 cents 
per case upon canned salmon, and we say that that is in direct con- 
travention of the act of Congress known as the enabling act of the 
Territory. It has nothing to do with the question of providing means 
for the collection of taxes by the Territory. 

Mr. Wickersham. The gentleman is clearly in error, because he 
is not acquainted with the situation. 

Mr. Britton. I think I know the situation as well as you do. 
Mr. Wickersham. I do not think you do ; or else you are not stat- 
ing to the committee your correct judgment about it, because the 
third section of the organic act specifically gives to the legislature 
the authority which was exercised here. It specially gave to the 
Legislature of the Territory of Alaska jurisdiction and power to 
levy these license taxes, and the only defect that was suggested in 
the circuit court of appeals or anywhere else in respect to that act 
of the legislature was that the legislature, in the performance of its 
duty under the organic act, imposed a duty upon officers who had 
no right to perform that duty, to wit, commissioners and clerks of 
courts. 

Mr. Watson. If your view of the law be correct in that respect, 
as to the constitutionality of the act of the Territorial Legislature 
of Alaska, what is the need, in this bill introduced by you here, to 
undertake to validate the act of the Territorial legislature ? 

Mr. Wickersha:m. You misunderstood me: I did not say that the 
act is valid ; I said that it was invalid, but that it was invalid simply 
because the legislature undertook to put the burden of collecting the 
taxes upon the clerks of the court and not otherwise. 

Mr. Watson. As I understood Mr. Britton just now, he said that 
section 1 of this bill undertook specifically to reenact and validate 
the revenue acts of the Territorial Legislature of Alaska. 



30 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

Mr. WiGKERSHAM. YcS. 

Mr. Watson. And I understand you to say that the only trouble 
about that act of the Legislature of Alaska is, not that the legisla- 
ture, in prej-cribing- the provision of the tax law, went in contraven- 
tion of the organic act of the Territory, but that it undertook to de- 
volve upon Federal officers duties which Federal officers were not 
under obligations to discharge. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Duties that they were forbidden by the act to 
discharge. 

Mr. Watson. If that act of the Territorial Legislature of Alaska 
is invalid only because of the fact that it undertakes to devolve 
unlawful duties upon officers who can not perform them, is there any 
occasion in your bill, which undertakes to validate that act of the 
Territorial legislature, to reenact, so to speak, or to validate all the 
terms and provisions of the act of the Territorial legislature? 

Mr. WiCKERSiiAai. Yes, sir; that is the purpose of the bill. 

Mr. Watson. Suppose your bill should undertake merely to re- 
lieve the act of the Territorial legislature of that obnoxious pro- 
vision which devolves duties upon Federal officers without going 
specifically into the other portions or provisions of the act, Avould 
not that meet the situation ? 

Mr. WickekshajNi. Xo, sir; that might not cure all the defects in 
the act of the Territorial legislature. 

Mr. Watson. Let us see about that. The act of the Territorial 
Legislature of Alaska required the performance of certain duties by 
certain Federal officers. Now, why could not the act of Congress 
simply provide that those officers, w^ho are United States officers, 
shall perform those duties? 

Mr. WicKERSiiAM. The act does say that. 

Mr. Watson. Why can't it say so without undertaking to pass 
upon the legality of the act of the Territorial legislature in other 
respects ? 

Mr. WiCKER8HA]M. The only way it attempts to pass upon the 
legality of the act of the Territorial legislature is to cure the de- 
fects in it so as to make it a valid act. Noav, Mr. Britton said to 
the committee, as I understood him, that, because of the fact that 
this act passed by the Territorial legislature levied a tax of 7 cents 
per case upon these salmon, it was in conflict with the act of Congress 
which had alreadj^ levied 4 cents upon them, contending that the 
legislature had no power to put that 7 cents additional tax upon 
salmon. Now, I think he is wrong about that— — ■ 

The Chairman (interposing). Let me make a suggestion right 
here. If there is any defect in this act of the Territorial Legislature 
of Alaska that needs remedying in order that you may provide that 
these Government officers shall perform the functions which the 
Territorial legislature undertook to impose upon them, that is a 
proper matter for us to consider in connection with this bill. Fur- 
thermore, if there are any terms or provisions in this act of the Ter- 
ritorial legislature that are in conflict with the organic act, that is 
a proper matter for us to consider, and that is a matter upon which 
the committee would hear the arguments of these gentlemen in con- 
sidering this bill, but when we undertake to go into the economic 
questions and to determine whether or not it is proper and right to 
tax salmon and at what rate, it occurs to me that that is a matter 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 31 

not before us under this bill. That is a matter which, in the first 
instance, ought to be determined by the Legislature of the Terri- 
tory of Alaska. They knoAv more .about that than we do, and, 
naturally, they are better judges of the question of wliether or not 
it is a proper rate of taxation. As a matter of course, if they should 
go wild and enact legislation that was manifestly improper, it might 
be corrected in the ])roper way — that is, it could be corrected in a 
bill introduced for that purpose. 

Now. then, in reply to your statement made just now, if there is a 
conflict between the organic act and the terms of this act, then we ought 
to consider that question before we pass a bill to validate that act 
of the Territorial legislature, and upon that question I think it is 
proper to hear these gentlemen. But I do not think we should now 
go into the question of the rate of taxation and all that. 

Mr. Brixton. I would like to insert in the record at this point a 
provision of the act of June 26, 1906, as follows : 

That every person, company, or corporation canning on the bnsiness of can- 
ning, curing, or preserving fish or manufjicturing flsli products within the Terri- 
tory linown as Alaska, ceded to the United States by Russia by the treaty of 
March 30. 1S6T. or in any of the waters of Alaslva over which the ITnited States 
has jurisdiction shall, in lieu of all other license fees and taxes therefor and 
thereon, pay license taxes on their said business and output as follows: 

Canned salmon, 4 cents per case. 

Pickled salmon, 10 cents per barrel. 

Salt salmon in bulk, 5 cents per hundred pounds. 

Fish oil. 10 cents per barrel. 

Fertilizer. 20 cents per ton. 

In the act approved August 24, 1912, which is the enabling act. 
Congress did not repeal the provisions of the act of June 26, 1906, 
imposing this tax, but it provided — 

That the authority herein granted to tlie legislature to alter, amend, modify, 
and repeal laws in force in Alaska shall not extend to the customs, internal 
revenue, postal, or other general laws of the United States or to the game, fish, 
and fur-seal laws and laws relating to fur-bearing animals of the United States 
applicable to Alaska or to the laws of the United States providing for taxes on 
business and trade. * * * Provided further, That this provision shall not 
operate to prevent the legislature from imposing other and additional taxes or 
licenses. 

Now, that would present to the committee the situation as it ex- 
isted when the Territorial legislature, in 1913, passed the act impos- 
ing a tax of 7 cents per case on canned salmon, and that naurally 
raises the suggestion from counsel for the canners that that provision 
of the legislature is in violation of the act of 1906 and of the enabling 
act, and the question of confirming the powers of the officers to col- 
lect the revenue is far exceeded when they seek to ratify and confirm 
an act of the Territorial legislature which is in direct violation of 
the terms of the act of Congress. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. There is no such question here, or, rather, 
that question has never been raised before. Of course, there is that 
question now, because the gentleman raises it, but it never has been 
raised before to my knowledge. When this case went to the courts 
the question does not seem to have been raised that the legislature 
lacked any authority by reason of that last proviso — that is, " That 
this provision shall not operate to prevent the legislature from im- 
posing other and additional taxes or licenses." Chapter 52 simply 



32 CHAPTEES 52 AND 5i OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

imposes additional taxes or licenses for the benefit of the Territory. 
This proviso was intended to give that authority; it was discussed 
before the committee and before Congress, and it was understood 
that that was the purpose of the proviso. That was perfectly plain, 
and that question has not been raised anywhere until this moment, 
so far as I know. 

Mr. Britton. It was raised when the enabling act was under con- 
sideration. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. By whom? 

Mr. Britton. Bj^ mj'self and Mr. Dorr. 

Mr. Webb. It was also raised by me. You made a speech in the 
House in which you stated that it was your purpose to tax fish, and 
I spoke to Senator Jones about it. The act had then passed the 
House. I said to him, " Judge Wickersham said that he intended to 
tax fish," and he said, " In my opinion it would not be right to do 
it in this act " ; and you will find that the word " fish " was inserted 
as a Senate amendment after the bill passed the House. 

Mr. Wickersham. Well, what of it ? 

Mr. Webb. It Avas put there to bar this act of the legislature that 
you are asking to have validated. 

Mr. Wickersham. Not at all; it was put there to bar the legisla- 
ture from exercising its full power and control over the Alaska 
fisheries, because the levying of taxes upon these fisheries would be 
one of the smallest parts of the power and jurisdiction over them 
if that other power and jurisdiction had not been taken away by 
the special limitation in the organic act. While the word "fish" 
was put in the organic act as an amendment and took away from 
the legislature its general power over the subject, another amend- 
ment was put on the bill in the House, because of the fact that the 
amendment had been made by putting the word " fish " in. I made 
a protest against it, and because of that protest the other provision 
was put in in the House so as to give the legislature power to levy 
additional license taxes. 

Mr. Britton. It was done by the conference committee. 

Mr. Bruner. I would like to call attention to section 3 of the 
organic act, which provides that the laws now in force with reference 
to Alaska shall continue in full force and effect until altered, 
amended, or repealed by Congress or by the legislature. 

Mr. Wickersham. There is no question about that. I do not think 
there is any serious question that can be made on that point. 

Mr. Browne. My name is Evans Browne, of the firm of Britton & 
Gray. Washington counsel of the Alaska Packers' Association. 

If the chairman please, in this Alaska statute there is a provision 
imposing a tax upon fish shipped into or out of the Territory of 
Alaska at the rate of 10 cents per ton, and there is also a provision 
which imposes a tax of 10 cents per ton on all freight handled or 
lightered by lighterage companies. It is manifest from the very 
language of the statute that those provisions impose a direct tax 
upon interstate commerce. Now, it is hardly necessary to suggest 
that, as a matter of original legislation, the Territorial Legislature 
of Alaska has not the aiithority to put a burden upon interstate com- 
merce, and the point can also be made that Congress, as a matter of 
original legislation, can not impose such a tax or validate a tax of 
that sort, for the reason that in so doing it would not be following the 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 33 

long-established rule of uniformity; that is to say, the long-estab- 
lished rule that the burdens and regulations imposed upon interstate 
commerce by the Federal Government must be uniform. Under that 
well-established rule of law, the collection of this tax by the Territory 
of Alaska is prohibited. This act does not undertake to impose the 
burden of any similar tax anywhere else 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM (intcrposing) . That is a question that has noth- 
ing to do with this matter, as I understand.it. If that contention is 
true, you could raise that question in the courts at any time. 

Mr. Browne. I understand that that question is to be argued here 
before the committee by a gentleman who is now on his way here. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I do not know what points you gentlemen pro- 
pose to argue, but I do not think there is any necessity for arguing 
that question here, because if the legislature has no power to impose 
a burden on interstate commerce, and that question is raised in the 
courts, undoubtedly the court would decide it ; but we want the right 
for the Territorial Legislature to continue levying these taxes and 
collecting them in Alaska, as we are given the right to do under this 
proviso in the organic law. I saj^ again to the committee that a read- 
ing of section 3 of the organic act will disclose to the committee 
clearly that the legislature had authority to impose other and addi- 
tional taxes or licenses, that authority being given in express worcls 
by the organic act. 

Mr. Webb. Mr. Chairman, when that act was under discussion, Mr. 
Wickersham stated that the idea was not to give to the Territorial 
Legislature of Alaska the right to make general laws in regard to fish, 
or laws about net or about spawning, or to put other and additional 
taxes upon them, they having been already taxed at so much per 
case, but that it meant that they might tax the holdings, warehouses, 
wharves, or impose upon that property other and additional taxes. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. The gentleman is mistaken about what I said, 
for I did all I could to give the legislature full power over the 
Alaska fisheries without limitation. The legislature now has author- 
ity to levy a tax not to exceed 2 per cent on your shore property in 
that Territory on jour real estate. You have millions of dollars 
worth of property there to-day that has not paid any taxes. You 
have more than $6,000,000 worth of shore property that you have 
never paid a nickel of taxes on. For nearly 40 years your cannery 
property has not paid taxes, and now when it is proposed to collect 
this small tax for the support of Alaska, which will amount to 
$120,000, you come here and set up a howl about it. You have done 
nothing for the support of government in Alaska, and now, for 
the first time, when you are taxed a little you come here and holler 
about it. The Alaska Packers' Association has made $15,000,000 in 
profit out of the salmon fisheries in Alaska, according to their own 
statements, which I have here and which I will bring before this 
committee if there is any occasion to do it. If you can believe their 
records, and I assume that you can, that fact can be established by 
their own admissions. If you can believe their statements 

Mr. Britton (interposing). If they are under oath, I think you 
can. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Oh, not necessarily, because they are under 
oath. Now, I feel that this is a very important matter 

43576—14 3 



34 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

Mr. Watson (interposing). Judge Wickersham, the question I 
asked you this morning seems to me to have something practical in it. 
My question was to this effect: Would it not be j^racticable for you 
in your bill to validate the act of the Territorial legislature, in so 
far as it undertakes to impose additional duties upon the clerks, 
marshals, and deputy marshals of the district courts of the United 
States by extending their present duties? The question is whether 
or not you could validate that act of the Territorial legislature with 
respect to the duties imposed upon these officers without constituting 
this committee a court of appeals to pass upon the question of con- 
flict of authority which has been raised by these gentlemen. 

Mr. Wickersham. I think it is possible. 

Mr. Watson. If that is possible all of these questions of law which 
have been raised by these gentlemen could be eliminated in the con- 
sideration of the matter by the committee, and this committee could 
report a provision in plain, concise terms to the effect that the act 
of the Territorial legislature, in so far as it undertook to impose 
these additional duties upon the clerks, marshals, etc., of the district 
courts, should be valid, thereby authorizing the officers mentioned to 
collect any duties or taxes which they could lawfully collect. That 
would leave all the questions of law involved to be decided by the 
courts. 

Mr. Curry. Congress could validate that section of the law and 
make them Alaska officials. 

Mr. Watson. Provision could be made that they should be author- 
ized to collect any tax that they might lawfully collect. " 

Mr. Curry. And the question of law, whether the tax was legally 
levied or not, might be decided by the courts. 

The Chairman. Would not that bring before this committee sim- 
ply the question of whether or not the law should be put into opera- 
tion? If the law was simply put into operation the parties who are 
injured or the parties from whom the tax is collected could bring 
suits in the courts for relief. 

Mr. Watson. I had this in mind: I gather from the communica- 
tions which have been read from the governor of the Territory of 
Alaska that the emergency which exists at this time is due to the 
unwillingness or inability of these Federal officers to collect the 
taxes which were prescribed by the Territorial legislature, and, if 
that be the only occasion for action on the part of Congress at this 
time, I thought that, if it were possible, the best way would be to 
deal with the specific question, and not undertake to deal with the 
question of the conflict of authority — that is, the question of whether 
the Territorial legislature had the legal authority to enact this law 
under the inhibitions placed upon it by the organic act. It was my 
idea that that would be the better way of dealing with the matter. 

The Chairman. I want to ask Judge Wickersham this question: 
If a law were passed by Congress removing this inhibition against 
the performance of these duties by the Federal officers mentioned in 
these acts, what necessity would there be for any further action look- 
ing to the validation of the acts? The acts would then be operative 
and in force, because, as I understand it, that is the only thing in 
the way of having the taxes collected ; and if we remedy that defect 
by removing the inhibition against the collection of the taxes by 
those Federal officers, why would not the law be in full force and 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 35 

effect? Of course, any man who was injured by it would have the 
right to bring suit and test the act if it were thought to be uncon- 
stitutional. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. The real defect in this particular act is in 
section two, which provides that the licenses shall be issued by the 
clerks of the district courts. That provision reads as follows : 

That the licenses provided for in this act shall be issued by the clerk of 
the district court or any subdivision thereof in compliance with the oi-der of 
the court or judge thereof duly made and entered; and the clerk of the court 
shall keep a full record of all applications for license and of all recommenda- 
tions for and remonstrances against the granting of licenses and the action of 
the court thereon. 

That is the only burden imposed upon any Government official, 
that is alleged to be prohibited by the organic act. 

The Chairman. Then, if that defect is cured, why could not the 
Territorial authorities go on with the law and put it in force ? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I am not sure about that, and I would like to 
make it absolutely safe by curing the defects — that is, by making it 
a valid act. 

Mr. Johnson. How about the defects in the other act, H. R. 
No. 98? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. There are other defects in that act. Besides, 
the burden of collecting the taxes under that act was imposed upon 
these public officers. 

Mr. Watkins. If that defect should be cured in this instance, it 
could be cured in the other, and when they levied the taxes the par- 
ties injured would have to proceed in the same way. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. If the acts are invalid for any reason it would 
be necessary to make them valid by the action of Congress. 

(Thereupon, at 12.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, sub- 
ject to the call of the chairman.) 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday, March 31, 191J^. 

The committee this daj'^ met, Hon. William C. Houston (chairman) 
presiding. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, I suggest that we 
have an executive session. 

The motion was agreed to. 

(After executive session:) 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, the committee in considering this bill, 
H. E. 11740, have been considering the question of disposing of 
part of the bill and letting the other part be held open; for in- 
stance, all that is involved in the second section — that is, to provide 
that these officers may collect the taxes. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. There is no objection, provided that we may 
hereafter do so. 

The Chairman. Well, certainly all that is involved in the second 
section; we separate that from the question involved in the first 
section and reserve the consideration of the first section to a later 
hearing and act upon the second section. If any of you gentlemen 



36 CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 

want to be heard upon that proposition, the second section alone 
without regard to the first, the committee would like to know it. 

Mr. Britton. I think the sense of all the representatives here is 
that they have no objection whatsoever to section 2 of the bill, and 
that it is the absolutely right course for the Territory to collect 
its local taxes. The only thing they are interested in is section 1. 

The Chairman. We do not want to take that section up now. 

Mr. Britton. The suggestion that I would make to the committee, 
Mr. Chairman, is that you have a bill (H. E. 153), practically the 
Jones bill of two years ago — the Flood bill — which we assumed that 
you would want to take up at the same time and go into the entire sub- 
ject of the method of regulation, the taxes, and the rate to be paid. 
It is i^erfectly agreeable to these gentlemen if you eliminate section 
1 and adopt section 2 as it is in the bill, giving the Territory the right 
to collect certain taxes that it may lawfully collect, but without 
undertaking to confirm chapters 52 and 54. 

The Cpiairman. Is that the sense of the gentlemen present? 

Mr. Britton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I do not approve of that. I say this, that 
without the first section it does not validate the chapters passed by 
the legislature. 

The Chairman. That is the question we are reserving ; we are not 
passing upon that question at all. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I waiitcd the bill passed as it was introduced, 
validating these two chapters of the session laws; but, of course, I 
yield to the committee. 

Mr. Britton. If there is any danger of that, Mr. Chairman, these 
gentlemen would desire most earnestly to be heard. 

Mr. Watson. Do the gentlemen want to be heard about that while 
in Washington? 

The Chairman. Do you want to be heard ? 

Mr. Britton. These gentlemen have come here at the most inop- 
portune time, because they are all getting ready for the season. 
Every time that the Alaska fisheries subject is brought up, it is 
brought up at the most inopportune time for them to be heard. If 
this hearing could be had in the winter at any time these gentlemen 
could come on and give the committee the benefit of their full in- 
formation. 

The Chairiman. Would you gentlemen rather be heard now as 
you are here, or to come back in 30 or 60 days from now ; that is the 
proposition. 

Mr. Britton. The Bureau of Fisheries, we understand, is going 
to make researches during the coming summer which we would like 
to have before the committee in the consideration of the entire 
subject. 

Mr. Watson. Dr. Jones, who holds some official position in the 
Bureau of Fisheries, phoned me yesterday evening that he had 
been specially designated to investigate the fisheries situation in 
Alaska, that he did not know anything about the matter of the bills 
before the committee, but that he hoped before the matter was 
finally determined to be able to get the report before us; that he 
expected to spend the whole summer in Alaska. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. There will not be any report from the bureau 
this summer? 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 37 

Mr. Watson. That is what I would infer from what he said. He 
said that he expected to spend the whole summer in Alaska. 

Mr. Oglesby. It is your opinion, Mr. Watson, that you are not in 
favor of the consideration or determination of the subject until the 
matter has been thoroughly gone into and the representatives of the 
department have been heard? 

Mr. Watson. I do not mean to say that, but Dr. Jones told me 
that he expected to spend the whole of the summer in Alaska, and 
I would be very loathe to go into the subject until the department 
was ready to report. 

Mr. Oglesby. There does not seem to be any reasonable proba- 
bility from any information you now have that this matter can be 
taken up for a number of months? 

Mr. Watson. I have told you all I know about it. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. It has been practically impossible to get any- 
thing done for the fisheries law in Congress. We have been trying 
for years to get something done, and we are not any further along 
now, and seem unable to get any final conclusion upon anything. 

Mr. Watson. This Congress has been a little more active than most 
Congresses, and I do not think that you can complain of inactivity. 
I think you will agree that we gentlemen would have to take up the 
fisheries question de novo and study it as an original proposition. I 
do not know how much data the department has collected. It may 
be that they are in a position to give us what information we desire. 
That I do not know. I simply told you of the message that I re- 
ceived from the department yesterday evening telling me that he 
hoped no final disposition would be made until the department had 
submitted its report. 

The Chairman. We evidently could wait and get full information, 
especially the information from the department, but we do not know 
just how soon we can get it, and we can not tell with the other ques- 
tions before us whether or not it is necessary for us to act before that 
time, before the information comes, and whether or not the condition 
in Alaska with reference to their revenue is such that it demands 
more speedy action than that. All that we ought to consider. I 
think we will have to ascertain the fact about it before we can deter- 
mine it. Therefore, I suggested to these gentlemen whether they 
would rather make their statement while here now or go home and 
come back whenever they may be notified. 

Mr. O'Brien. The second section is satisfactory to the gentlemen? 

The Chairman. That is what they have said. 

Mr. Britton. In accordance with the telegraphic request of Gov. 
Strong, of Alaska, so far as I can see, that is all the Governor has 
asked Congress to enact. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. The gentleman is correct; but I do not think 
Gov. Strong went far enough in his request, but still I feel obliged 
to accept the statement made by Gov. Strong as final. 

Mr. Bruner. Mr. Chairman, the only matter before this com- 
mittee is the present power of the legislature to tax and report the 
collection of taxes. I think that matter is entirely distinct from any 
report that the Bureau of Fisheries can make upon the general 
proposition of the quantity and care of fishes in Alaska. I would 
like to have the committee act upon the question, first, of the right 



38 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

to impose these national duties, and, in the next place, as to the 
validity of this law, and I think it should be done at this time. 

The Chairman. I suggest that you gentlemen get together between 
now and the day after to-morrow and determine whether any of you 
gentlemen desire to be heard or whether you would prefer to come 
back later and be heard. 

Mr. Oglesby. As I understand, that carries with it this proposi- 
tion : If these gentlemen are heard now those on the other side of 
the case or any others will have an opportunity to be heard at some 
future time? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. Britton. We can answer now that if it is the purpose of the 
committee to take up section 1 of this bill, we want to be heard and 
are ready to be heard now. If this committee does not care to take 
up section 1, then we will be at the convenience of the committee. 

The Chairman. The committee has not determined whether they 
want to take up section 1. That is a matter which we have under 
consideration and which we are deliberating upon. We want to find 
out the desire of these gentlemen. We were rather inclined to defer 
the matter, but we did not want to compel you gentlemen to come 
and make a second visit if you were willing to be heard now. 

Mr. Oglesby. I would like to get an expression from these gentle- 
men as to how long, probably, it will take them to present their case? 

The Chairman. I have no idea. 

Mr. Britton. I can only say that there [exhibiting] is the record 
of the hearings before the subcommittee of the Committee on Fisheries 
two years ago, which did not finish the hearings. 

(Thereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of execu- 
tive business, after which it adjourned to meet on Thursday, April 2, 
1914, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 

Thursday, April 2, 1911^. 
The Chairman. There does not appear to be a quorum of the com- 
mittee present and I would like you to state, Mr. Britton, the present 
status of the fisheries question and what the desire is of the gentle- 
men representing this interest upon the question of being heard now. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER BRITTON. 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Chairman, after the Jones bill was quite fully 
heard in the Senate, the further question of the general regulation 
of the fisheries in Alaska and the tax to be imposed on salmon was 
left for conference between the Fish Commission and the people 
interested in the fisheries. They got together and drafted a tenta- 
tive bill, which, however, has never been presented to Congress. In 
the present session of Congress Mr. Flood has introduced H. R. 
153, which is an exact duplicate of the Jones bill in the Senate 
at the previous session, before it was amended. No conference has 
been had between the Fish Commission and the fishery interests in 
regard to this subject at the present session, it being understood that 
the Fish Commission desired to look into the matter further through 



. CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 39 

detailed examination on the ground. The Flood bill and the tenta- 
tive draft heretofore spoken of takes in the entire question of the 
fishery interests in Alaska, including the amount of tax to be imposed 
on canned salmon. These gentlemen are not desirous of taking up 
a full hearing on these detailed questions until after the Fish Com- 
mission has made its present researches and until the conditions ex- 
isting this year are known, so that the committee, when it takes up 
the subject will have the latest and fullest information on the subject. 

In the next place, the men who are acquainted w^ith the details of 
this industry can best come to Washington in the winter. At this 
season of the year they are preparing to go to Alaska or are on their 
way there. The gentlemen who are here are either the owners of 
the canneries or the legal representatives. They can speak on the 
law, but they are not so fully acquainted with the details as the 
managers. 

The Chairman. We are, of course, anxious to dispose of this mat- 
ter as quickly as possible, as to whether you want to be heard or not. 
The vital question is whether these gentlemen who have come here 
from the Pacific coast w^ould like to make their statements before 
this committee while we are here or go back home and make a second 
trip here when the matter is taken up again. 

Mr. Britton. I think they would rather have the matter go over. 

The Chairman. I would like to have printed in the hearing a let- 
ter I have received from the Assistant Fish Commissioner, or Deputy 
Commissioner. The general purport of it is that Mr. Jones, the 
Deputy Commissioner, is going to Alaska to examine into conditions 
there, especially the question of fisheries. He wants to take up the 
whole subject and report in full. 

Mr. Britton. Who is Mr. Jones? 

The CHAiRarAN. The Deputy Fish Commissioner. They prefer 
and request that this matter be delayed until they can make an ex- 
amination and report. 

(The letter is as follows:) 

Department of Commerce. 

Bureau of Fisheries, 

Washington, April 1, tOlJf, 
Hon. William C. Houston, 

Chairman Committee on Territories. 

House of Representatives, Washington. D. C. 

My Dear Sir: Acting on yonr suggestion I am herewith outlining briefly the 
purpose of my trip to Alaslca this summer. As Uniterl States Deputy Com- 
missioner of Fisheries. Secretary Redfield has placed under me the direct super- 
vision of the fisheries of Alaska. He has further authorized me to go this sum- 
mer with a view of making a complete survey of all. the hatcheries, both Gov- 
ernment and private, canneries, salteries, fertilizer factories, cold-storage plants, 
herring stations, and. in fact, all parts of the work that come under this 
bureau's .jurisdiction in that Territory, and upon my investigations to make a 
clear and comprehensive report that will be backed up by facts which will 
enable the Secretary to clearly place before Congress and its various com- 
mittees the present conditions of the fisheries in Alaska, with suggestions as to 
what is necessary to protect, build up, and perpetuate the fishing industry. 

The Secretary's ideas in this matter have been indorsed by a great many 
Members of Congress, and he is making preparations that will enable me to 
carry out the ob.iect of my trip with perfect satisfaction. This great work 
before me is well appreciated. I do not even in the smallest degree under- 
estimate the seriousness of this great problem and undertaking. I expect to 
leave some time in May to be gone four to five months, and you can rest assured 
that I will do everything within my power to deliver a comprehensive report 



40 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. ' 

that will be of real benefit and help in enacting future legislation for the wel- 
fare of the Alaska fisheries. I am taking with me a photographer. The results 
of his work will enable me further to substantiate my report as to certain 
existing conditions that will be well illustrated by photographs. 

I earnestly hope that any pending legislation pertaining to this sub.1ect, if 
proper and consistent with the views of yourself and your committee, may be 
withdrawn temporarily until after my return, 

Realizing fully the importance of this mission, I will go on it with the single 
purpose of learning all conditions exactly as they are. 
I am, 

Respectfully, yours, 

E. Lester Jones, 
Deputy Commissioner. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. The result of these delays will be, Mr. Chair- 
man, that Congress will not do anything with the fisheries in 
Alaska. The Fish Commissioner can not make> a report until after 
he returns in July. That delay will adjourn the whole matter over 
for this session. The next session of this Congress, beginning in 
December, is the short session, and it will be so arranged that noth- 
ing will be done then. It will go over until the next Congress, and 
the same delays will occur again. That has been the result of these 
efforts for continuance and delay year after year. All Alaska gets 
is a volume of hearings and never any laws for protection. In the 
meantime, the Alaska fisheries are being destroyed, and I earnestly 
protest against further unusual delay in this matter. I think Con- 
gress ought to take hold of this question and protect this great food 
supply from destruction. 

The Chairman. With that statement of facts we will have to have 
the committee in session and a quorum present to act in this matter. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I vcry earnestly request that something be 
done. 

Mr. Ellwood Bruner. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the 
main purport of this bill should be whether or not the additional 
duties which were imposed upon Federal officers by the legislature 
shall be granted by this Congress. 

The Chairman. That, Mr, Bruner, we have already provided for 
by action of the committee. 

Mr. Bruner. I am hoping, then, that will be segregated from this 
bill. 

The Chairman. You are aware of the committee's action on that 
matter ? 

Mr. Bruner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We have reported that bill. 

Mr. Bruner. Then I do not care anything further about it. We 
are willing, so far as the legislature is concerned, to test the princi- 
ple whether, under our organic act, we are entitled to tax the fish- 
eries or not. 

The Chairman. We can not take any action now. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. That is true, but I want Congress to validate 
these acts and make some provisions for preserving the fisheries in 
Alaska, and do it this session. 

The Chairman. We will have the committee called at such time 
as , we can get a quorum, and we will then go into the question 
further. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 41 

Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 

Friday, April 3, 1914. 

The committee this day met, Hon. William C. Houston (chairman) 
presiding. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee, we will take up 
this morning the question of the course of the committee as to what 
we are going to do in regard to this question of the Alaskan fisheries 
and the taxation question involved in the first section of the bill 
H. R. 11740. 

We had before us at the last meeting of the committee a letter from 
Dr. Jones, Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries. That letter has 
been printed in the hearings and I take it that you gentlemen know 
its contents. Upon the question as to whether or not we should go 
into the consideration of this question at this time, or put it off until 
later, I am willing to hear any statement from any member of the 
committee, and I would like to hear any other gentlemen who are 
here who want to be heard upon that proposition and who are inter- 
ested in the consideration of this question. That also brings us to 
the consideration of a question which I have spoken of heretofore, 
that in the event of postponing this subject or making this investi- 
gation, whether or not the men who are here now from the Pacific 
coast would like to be heard at this time or, in case the consideration 
of the subject is postponed, later on. 

Judge Wickersham, you stated at the last meeting that you were 
opposed to deferring this matter, and that you would like some steps 
to be taken at as early a date as possible. We are willing to hear 
from you now on that subject. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WICKERSHAM, A DELEGATE IN 
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA. 

Mr. Wickersham. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
I have been trying for five or six jeavs to get some legislation from 
Congress for the protection of the fisheries in Alaska, but always 
in vain. We have had numerous hearings from time to time, but 
no results have come from them. Invariably efforts to continue the 
matter somewhat indefinitely have been made, and invariably the 
matter has been continued without passing any laws for the protec- 
tion of the Alaskan fisheries. 

I do not wish to appear unreasonable, gentlemen of the committee, 
at this time, either to the committee or to the gentlemen who repre- 
sent the canneries in Alaska, but I do wish to say to the committee 
most earnestly that while this matter is not acted upon, in the mean- 
time the fisheries in Alaska are being depleted and destroyed. 

I want to make a sufficient statement, if I may, to present the 
matter to the committee so that the committee will have at least some 
reference to the evidence which I want to put before you in proof 
of the fact that the fisheries are being depleted, and that if this 
committee does not take hold of this matter soon and do some- 
thing there is going to be great harm done to the fisheries in Alaska, 
to a great food supply of that Territory, and, I may say, a food 
supply not only of the Territory of Alaska but of the whole Nation, 
which is being destroyed. 



42 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

If the committee will hear me briefly at this time, I want to call 
the attention of the members of the committee to a very remark- 
able rejDort made by an official of the Bureau of Fisheries some years 
ago. It will be found in the Bulletin of the United States Fish Com- 
mission, volume 18, for the year 1898. 

The report was made at that time by Jefferson F. Moser, com- 
mander, United States Navy, commanding the United States Fish 
Commission steamer Albatross^ then in Alaskan waters, for the pur- 
pose of ascertaining the facts with respect to the fisheries there, as 
to whether or not they were being destroyed and depleted at that 
time, in 1898. 

Since that time Capt Moser has left the service of the Government 
and is now general manager and in control of all the fishing in- 
dustries of the Alaska Packers' Association in Alaska. He is a 
man of great strength of character, and is just such a man as one 
would expect to find at the head of a great enterprise of that kind. 
He is an ideal gentleman, and what he says is entitled to the greatest 
weight, notwithstanding the fact that he now represents the Alaska 
Packers' Association as their general manager. 

In 1898, in his report, he went into the question of the depletion 
of the salmon streams in Alaska. It is a very important report, and 
I am glad to have it here, because I want to commend it to the most 
earnest and careful study of the members of the committee in regard 
to the general proposition of the destruction of the salmon in Alaska. 

In that report, at page 34, Capt. Moser said, under the head of 
" Depletion of streams " : 

When a person interested in a cannery is qnestioned regarding tlie decrease 
of salmon in Alaskan waters, lie is likely to assnre you at once that there are 
just as many salmon in the strean)S as there ever were, and begins his proofs 
by citing years like 1S96. when there was a large run of i-edfish in Alaska; but 
any disinterested authority on the subject will say that the streams of Alaska 
are becoming deplete!. Wljile it can hardly be said that the streams will fail 
entirely withiTi a few years, there is no doubt that the average runs show 
fewer fish year by year, and if the laws are not amended and enforced, the time 
will come in the not very distant future when the canneries must suffer through 
their own actions. 

It is a difficult matter to furnish convincing proofs to those who do not wish 
to be convinced, and any argument may fail with those who are interested 
commercially. It is also difficult to establish proof by statistics, because accu- 
rate stream statistics, as a rule, can not be obtained: and, as to packs, the 
canneries have multiplied in numbers, and many of them have been so enlarged 
that no comparison can be made. The causes of the depletion are the bar- 
Pleading of streams and overfishing ; in other words, illegal fishing. 

******* 

Probably nowhere is the depletion more noticed than in Copper River Delta 
and Prince William Sound district. In 1890 the two canneries used 20 boats, 
each with 150 fathoms of web, l)esides seines, and fished Mountain Slough 
Eyak Lake and River, and Algonek and Glacier Sloughs in the delta, and 
Miner River and Cheniga in Prince William Sound. In 1897, to make a 
slightly increased pack, one cannery used 32 boats, the other 43. all with 450 
fathoms of web to a boat, and they fished all the streams from Chilkhat River 
to Eyak in the delta, and all the streams in Prince William Sound. There is 
no doubt in the minds of the people of Prince William Sound that the streams 
are being depleted. 

It goes on to give more specific data showing the decrease in the 
salmon trade in Alaska, the cause of the depletion, and where the 
depletions have taken place, and it also goes to show the great deple- 
tion of the Karluk and other streams in Alaska. That was in 1898. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 48 

These gentlemen here representing interests in Alaska will bring their 
statistics before you, statistics which they have very beautifully pre- 
pared and which are substantially correct, to show that, notwith- 
standing the prognostication of Capt. Moser in 1898, that there has 
been a very large increase in the packing of salmon in Alaska since 
that date. 

Mr. Johnson. Where are Capt. Moser's headquarters at the present 
time? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. In San Francisco. He is the general manager 
of the Alaska Packers' Association. 

Mr. Johnson. And a statement could be had from him at this 
time? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. We have that; it is all here. 

It is undoubtedly true that since 1898 the pack of salmon in Alaska 
has largely increased, and that is easily explained by people who 
know the general situation.. 

In 1898 they were fishing, substantially, at the mouths of streams. 
Capt. Moser pointed out that by the methods of fishing in vogue at 
that time they were depleting the streams. Since that time the 
method of fishing has largely changed. In 1898 there were very 
few traps catching fish. At this time there are many hundreds of 
traps. I do not know whether you gentlemen know what a fish 
trap is. 

Mr. Watkins. Are fish traps allowed under the law ? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. They are allowed under the law. These pound 
nets are strung on piles; that is, a row of piles is driven from the 
shore away out in the deep water, and a jigger or wing is put on 
out there. At the point where the shore line of piles reaches the 
jigger line there is a trap so arranged that the fish coming along- 
shore — and they usually follow a particular course — they go into the 
heart of the net, and so they catch thousands of them in that way. 
The number of them caught in that way is so great that you would 
hardly believe it. 

The Chairman. I believe you were describing the trap. 

Mr, WiCKERSHAM. Ycs, 

The Chairman. And you spoke of it as a net? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. It is a net on piles, strung on piles in the water. 

Mr. Davenport. We call it in our country a fish basket. 

The Chairman. I would be glad if you would describe the trap. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. The trap consists of a row of piles driven out 
to the deep water with a wing on the outside of it for the purpose 
of guiding the fish into the nets, and then a webbing or net is strung 
all around on the outside in such a way that the two long wings 
drive the fish into the central part of the net and there they are 
caught. That is about as accurately as I can describe it. 

Mr. Watkins. Does the law allow them to completely obstruct 
the passage of the fish? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAiM. Theoretically, no; the law says not. But they 
substantially do that, by reason of the number of traps they set and 
the places at which they set them. Trap fishing has largely in- 
creased since 1898. There are hundreds of traps now where there 
were only a very few at that time. 

Mr. Curry. Is not that kind of fishing done to-day, generally, 
all over the word? 



44 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Curry. They are supposed to be- 



Mr. WiCKERSHAM (interposing) . I wish the gentleman would let 
me make my own statement. 

Mr. Curry. I thought the gentleman would like to know what a 
trap net was. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. It is a common method of catching fish. 

Mr. Curry. It is the only method. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. The gentleman is greatly mistaken when he 
says that. 

Those traps are now being substantially supplemented by nets at 
sea. The fishermen have discovered by their long years of ex- 
perience at this business that they can go out to sea and catch the 
fish before they get near the pound nets along the shore. Nothwith- 
standing the fact that the pound nets have greatly increased, have 
increased to such an extent that where they are located now it looks 
like a forest growing out of the water, now they are going out to sea 
in great power boats, going out as far as 20 miles, and there they 
catch the salmon before they get near the shore, and they are captur- 
ing great quantities of salmon in that way at this time. 

Trap fishing has been substantially built up since this report was 
made in 1898 by Capt. Moser, and the practice of fishing at sea hag 
practically been entirely wholly built up since that time. The result 
is that in that way — in that manner of catching the fish — the output 
in Alaska has increased during these years, and it is greater to-day 
than it was several years ago. But that is because, Mr. Chairman, 
they are going out into the sea and along the shore and are capturing 
fish they never thought of capturing in 1898 when Capt. Moser wrote 
that report. In other words, instead of taking the interest on the 
fishery fund in Alaska, they are now catching the principal. They 
are taking the whole of the great body of the salmon in Alaska be- 
fore they even get to the shores, and when some of them do get to 
the shores hundreds of traps are set so that they may catch what 
are left. Now, in order that the committee may know that the mat- 
ter has reached the limit, I want to quote some of the testimony of 
Dr. Evermann, who, until within the last few wheeks was in charge 
of the Alaska fisheries in the Fish Commission. Two years ago we 
had one of these— — 

The Chairman. He was a governmental official? 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. Two years ago we had one of these hearings 
before the Senate committee, and Dr. Evermann testified at that 
time. Dr. Evermann was the chief of the Alaska division of the 
Bureau of Fisheries. 

On page 28 of this volume 2 of the hearings held before the sub- 
committee of the Committee on Fisheries in the Senate on Janu- 
ary 17, 1913, I asked Dr. Evermann some questions in regard to this 
matter, and I will read you some of the testimony that he gave at 
that time: 

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Are not tbey overworking the salmon streams of Alaska? 

Dr. Evermann. I think so ; some of the streams. 

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Did not you state two years ago, doctor, that the maxi- 
mum had been reached in the output of the salmon streams of Alaska? 

Dr. Evermann. Perhaps; I do not remember. I am not sure now that, so 
far as the red salmon are concerned in Alaska, the maximum has been reached. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 45 

While the pack is kept up, it is maintained because of a remarliable increase in 
the cheaper grades without a corresponding increase in red salmon. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Has the red been decreasing? 

Dr. EvERMANN. Yes. I do not know just what the figures this year show, 
but I think you will find that they show a decrease. 

Mr. Bower. The total pack of red salmon from Alaska during 1912 was 
about 1,900,000 cases. 

Dr. EvERMANN. How much was it in 1911? 

Mr. Bower. One million three hundred and fifteen thousand cases. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. So that it was an increase this year? 

Dr. EvERMANN. Yes. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. You think, now, the maximum has been reached that 
ought to be taken out of those streams? 

Dr. EvERMANN. Of course, it is hazardous to make positive prediction of 
what may happen; but it is reasonable to suppose that we have reached the 
danger line. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Doctor, you are in charge of the Alaska fisheries; and I 
would like to have you inform this committee as to when some brake ought to 
be put on taking fish out of those streams. 

Dr. EVERMANN. We have been trying to put the brake on for the last several 
years. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Then, your judgment is that it ought to be put on? 

Dr. EvERMANN. And we have succeeded now. I am happy to say, with the 
consent — e^ en at the suggestion — of the important canning interests. The 
brake has been put on in a number of streams in Alaska by order of the 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. Where has that been done? 

Dr. EvERMANN. Fishing is prohibited now, or will be next season, in all of 
the streams tributary to Cook Inlet. 

That brings to my mind another thought. Formerly they did not 
trap the cheaper grades to the same extent that they do now, and now 
that the fish are becoming scarcer, they are putting up fish that they 
did not touch at all in the previous years, and they are putting up 
large quantities of the cheaper grades. By going to sea and catching 
fish, and by using this great wilderness of trap nets, and by putting 
out other nets it is true they have kept up the catch in Alaska, but it 
is within the knowledge of everybod}'' who has the smallest informa- 
tion on the subject and who wishes to preserve these fish, that the 
maximum has long ago been reached, and that we are now witnessing 
waste and destruction with respect to the fisheries in Alaska. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Alaska salmon streams can be depleted. 
I have here a most interesting book. It is the Pacific Fisherman's 
Yearbook, issued, in January, 1914. It is published in Seattle, and, 
I understand, it is maintained by the packing interests of the Pacific 
coast. Whoever does it does a good job. I think it ought to be care- 
fully examined by the members of this committee if you are going 
to study the subject of fisheries in Alaska. 

I want to call the attention of the committee to one stream which 
has been depleted in California, and that is the Sacramento Eiver. 
The Sacramento River was one of the first rivers upon which canners 
put up salmon. In 18G4 the first canned salmon were packed in Cali- 
fornia on the Sacramento River. In 1882 there were 200,000 cases 
of canned salmon put out from the Sacramento River — 18 pounds to 
the case, making a total of 4,800 tons of salmon canned during that 
3^ear on the Sacramento River. 

Then it began to decrease, and it went down to 123.000; then to 
90,000 ; then to 57,000 ; then to 31,000 ; then to 14,000 ; and finally in 
1906 there were none put up on that river. For three or four years 
there were none put up, but m 1913 there were 950 cases put up on the 



46 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

Sacramento River. In short, that great salmon stream has been 
utterly destroyed and there are no fish there now, substantially. 

Of course, that situation resulted from several causes. It resulted 
from overfishing, and from putting barriers across the streams to 
catch the fish, and it resulted in part from mining. All these things 
are going to happen in Alaska. There is mining going on there now 
on many of these streams. All the obstacles that operated to bring 
about that evil in the Sacramento Eiver will operate in Alaska as 
soon as they open up that country. As soon as that is done and 
they get to work in there, the streams there are going to be depleted. 

When the first Eussians went to Kadiak Island, more than a cen- 
tury ago, they found the Karluk salmon stream surrounded by In- 
dians. It was a great fishing spot. That stream has probably turned 
out more canned salmon than any other stream in Alaska. Dr. Ever- 
mann and all those who were acquainted with it say it was the great- 
est salmon stream in the world. I saw the fishing going on there in 
1903. I know how it was done. They had at one side a great post set 
in the ground sufficient to hold the nets. The nets were put into big 
boats, and they were long nets, some of them half a mile long, I sup- 
pose, and the}^ were carried out into the bay, and as they came around 
they were fastened to a rope on the shore, to which was attached a big 
engine, and when they got that far along the big engine pulled the 
nets for them. The number of fish which they caught in there is sim- 
ply unbelievable, and they were pulled in by machinery. The men 
themselves were unable to handle big nets of that kind. They were 
able to handle the small nets, but when they got machinery handling 
the fish for them they soon destroyed that stream. Every fisherman 
in that region knows it is destroyed ; knows that the greatest salmon 
stream in Alaska has been destroyed. 

The Wood River was perhaps the next greatest salmon stream in 
Alaska. The President made a special order withdrawing the Wood 
River from the fishing of the Alaska Packers' Association and other 
companies who had their canneries there, and their fish traps, and 
every other possible scheme and device for catching fish. 

Now, I have plenty of other testimony along this line. Here is a 
whole bundle of petitions from the fishermen of Alaska asking for 
the abolishment of the fish trap. Here are the men who live in 
Alaska. There are all kinds of fishermen — seiners and all other 
kinds. 

Mr, Johnson. They ask for the abolishment of all kinds of fish 
traps ? 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. The abolishment of the fish traps, as I have de- 
scribed them here. 

Mr. Chairman, it is pretty hard to get the fishermen in Alaska to 
go into court. Those who are engaged in fishing there and who 
know the true situation do not care to go into court because of the 
overwhelming poAver of the Alaska Fishing Trust, which controls 
the situation in Alaska. I have talked to a great many of them, and 
I know what the situation is; and from the evidence given to me by 
these people and from what little I have seen — and I do not profess 
to have any particular knowledge as an expert — I am satisfied that 
the pound net or trap is a great destroyer of fish. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 47 

Soon after a fish goes into a pound net it is dead. The pound 
net destroys every fish that gets into it. The pound net is set out 
in the deep water, and when there is a big run of fish on they 
run into the heart of the net, and there they accumulate in such num- 
bers that the photographs of them make you think they are solid 
bodies of fish. I haA^e photographs here showing that condition. 
It looks like a solid body of fish, and when the tide begins to go 
down and the fish begin to settle down on each other they are dead. 
When the bottom of these nets is cut out, as it frequently is, many 
tons of fish slide out into the boats dead. 

They catch all kinds of fish in those traps. The catch the silver 
salmon and the humpback salmon. If they do not use any of them 
as they formerly did not all of the fish going into that net, except the 
choice fish, are destroyed. More fish are destroyed in Alaska in that 
Avay by the traps than are canned, if the evidence which comes to 
me is substantially accurate, and I have every reason to believe it is. 
I will say to the committee that I do not know that of my own per- 
sonal knowledge, because I have seen so little of it that I can not say 
that to be true, but I do say it upon information that I believe most 
earnestly, and I say it in the presence of Dr. Jones, because I would 
like to have him find out whether it is true, and I also want to say 
in the presence of Dr. Jones that it is generally known that he is 
going to Alaska, and I have seen the inspector coming around in 
Alaska, and when the inspector comes after notice things are in 
pretty good shape. 

I clo not want to take up any more time of the committee to-day. 
The point I am making is this, that if you gentlemen do not do some- 
thing in Alaska the fisheries there are going to be destroyed. The 
canners there do not want to destroy the fisheries. The trouble is 
that there are a hundred fishing concerns in Alaska. There are hun- 
dreds of the traps. Many of them are not owned by the canning 
companies at all. People go up there and sell the fish to the canning 
companies. The shore is lined with these traps, and they are over- 
fishing. 

Capt. Moser srjs they were overfishing in 1908, and yet in 1914 
they are fishing more vigorously than ever. Now, Mr. Chairman, 
there are some telegrams here from people who claim to be members 
of Alaska fishermen's unions in Seattle and in San Francisco. There 
is no such thing as an Alaska fishermen's union in that country, ex- 
cept as a dummy. There are dummies down there who claim to be 
Alaska fishermen's unions, but they are not. It is very easy to get up 
an Alaska fishermen's union and send a telegram down here to Wash- 
ington. These people who go to Alaska to fish are picked up along the 
wharves in San Francisco and other places, and when the fishing 
season begins they are taken to Alaska and at the close of the fishing 
season they are brought back, and they are paid $165 for the season, 
but they are not paid anything in Alaska. They are not paid a cent 
until they get back to Seattle or San Francisco or Portland, and then 
they are put on the wharves, and then they are paid $165, and that 
is the end of it. Then these telegrams are sent from the alleged 
fishermen's unions in these different places. The Alaska fishermen's 
unions in Alaska are composed of men who live in Alaska. They 



48 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 

are composed of the men who signed these petitions and sent them 
here, and are the men who are trying to get some protection for these 
fisheries in Alaska. 

There is a Southeastern Alaska Fisherman's Association! which 
has headquarters at Ketchikan, and they have made a statement in 
regard to this matter, which I will put into the record at this point, 
if there is no objection. 

(The statement referred to is as follows:) 

Southeastern Alaska Fishermen's Association, 

Ketchikan, Alaska, March Jf, 1913. 

Dear Sir : The people of Alaska, Indians and whites, whose homes and in- 
terests are in Alaska, and whose laws affecting their naost vital interests are 
all made in Washington, D. C, ask your serious consideration of the following: 

The only important industry of the people of southeast Alaska is fishing. It 
is the work by which the permanent residents directly (or indirectly, as mer- 
chants, etc.) make their living. There is very little mining; the land is not fit 
for farming, being nothing but a thin layer of decayed vegetation over solid 
rock. 

Salmon used to be the principle food of the natives, now the canneries are 
trying to take them all, and the natives do not get their share. In streams 
where salmon used to be abundent they now find non6. 

Almost all of the work inside of the canneries is done by Chinese and Japa- 
nese contract laborers brought from San Francisco and other places by the 
canning companies. Hardly any of this work is offered the residents of the 
country. 

Every year the locating of more fish traps by the canneries is making the only 
important industry of southeastern Alaska a monopoly of nonresidents and 
foreign corporations, whose great wealth has been taken from the Avaters of 
Alaska by the operating of canneries a few months annually, but it is spent 
elsewhere, and work for the people whose homes are here grows less and less 
every season. 

If the natives are deprived of the opportunity to fish for their living the 
Government will have to support them. If the white residents are deprived 
of that opportunity they will have to leave the homes they have worked hard 
to get and go elsewhere. 

The natives are proud and self-respecting. They wish to support themselves. 
They wish to vote and have the rights of citizenship. Now they pay taxes but 
are not allowed to vote. 

Further, the traps destroy countless millions of fish, and if their continued 
use is allowed, the once plentiful salmon will be as rare in our waters as the 
once plentiful buffalo is now on the western plains, and many other animals 
and birds that have been wantonly destroyed to enrich a few. 

Last summer the traps caught so many fish that even the canneries, whose 
canning capacity is 144,000 and 168,000 cans a day, could not can them, so they 
sold them to otlier canneries who had no traps, and refused to take fish from 
the fishermen, which prevented the fishermen from earning anything for the 
better part of the season. 

PRICES CANNERIES PAY FISHERMEN IN SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA. 

The fishermen in southeastern Alaska are paid one-third or less the price that 
fishermen receive on Puget Sound, and the cost of living here is twice as much 
and more, and even these prices were not granted by the canneries until after 
a stubborn strike by the fishermen : 

Humpback salmon 1^ cents a fish at streams ; delivered at canneries by the 
fishermen, 15 <?ents a fish ; average weight, 6 pounds. 

Sockeyes and Cohoes at streams, where fish are large 12 cents; delivered at 
canneries, 15 cents a fish; average weight, 9 pounds. 

At streams where these varieties are a little smaller, 10 cents a fish ; delivered 
12 cents. 

Dog salmon, 3 cents apiece at streams ; delivered 3* cents ; average weight, 11 
pounds. 



CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 49 

COMPARISON OF THE CATCH BY TRAPS AND SEINES. 

, Continued fishing witli traps will soon exterminate the fish, while fishing with 
seines can not, if for no other reason than that the traps are catching fish 
steadily night and day for six days of the weeli (even when the law to close 
them on Sunday is obeyed, and we have affidavits that it is not always obeyed), 
while in fishing with seines the men usually begin at 5 o'clock in the morning 
and stop at 6 in the evening and only drop the seines into the water where 
there is supposed to be a school of fish. 

A crew of 5, 6, or 7 men fishing with a purse seine might if they had rare, 
good luck catch 20,000 fish a day, while one trap could easily catch 60,000. 

CONSTRUCTION OF FISH TRAPS. 

There are two kinds of traps, stationary and movable. The latter can be 
moved from place to place by towboats of sufficient power. Both are con- 
structed chiefly of piles and fish net so arranged that fish pass through one 
funnel-shaped opening to another and they never turn back and come out. 

The piles of the stationary trap are driven as deep as is necessary to be se- 
cure and usually stand SO feet or more above the bottom of the sea — about 
2 feet above high-water mark. 

After the fishing season they are a menace to navigation and a danger to 
small boats as no lights are kept upon them. They extend from the shore out 
as far into the water as the schools of fish are known to run — a thousand feet 
or more. The fish always run near the shore. 

Ex-Gov. Clark in his report for 1912 states that " With a trap or a series of 
traps extending out 1,000 feet into a channel, often several miles wide, the part 
of the passage blockaded against the salmon is comparatively small." 

As it is a well and widely known fact that the schools of fish always run 
close to the shore, a trap extending out 1,000 feet, or less, would catch all the 
fish going in that direction seeking their spawning grounds (until packed too 
full to hold more), whether they numbered 1,000 or many thousands. 

After a fish strikes a trap it never gets out until taken out — dead or alive. 

IMMENSE WASTE OF FOOD FISH AT LOW WATER. 

The average fall from high water to low water is 15 feet. When a trap Is 
full of fish as soon as the tide gets low the weight of those on top smother 
those underneath. The skin is worn off to the fiesh and the entrals forced out. 

Traps also destroy countless millions of fish which seines do not, because 
small salmon (under a certain size are not canned), bass, trout, cod, flounders, 
halibut, etc., get into the traps and are smothered to death, and damaged so 
they die, and are thrown away with the damaged salmon when the fish are 
taken out of the traps, in which they are liable to lie 4, 5, 6, or 7 days before 
being taken out. 

Dog fish (a species of shark) also destroy quantities of salmon in the traps. 
In seine fishing any other fish than the salmon are immediately thrown back 
into the water by the fishermen. 

The majority of the people of Alaska ask that fish traps be abolished from 
the waters of Alaska because— 

Their continued use will soon exterminate the food fish of all kinds. 

They make fishing a monopoly which enriches a few and impoverishes the 
many. 

They are a " special privilege " because they catch fish night and day, which 
the people can not do, and were there a law forbidding this its enforcement 
could hardly be accomplished. 

A petition for the abolishment of fish traps, signed by 2,921 of the residents 
of southeastern Alaska has been sent to Congress through Delegate Wicker- 
sham, of Alaska, and we respectfully request early passage of such legislation. 
Faithfully, yours, 

Nels. Gibson, 
Secretary-Treasurer Southeastern Alaska Fishermen's Association. 

43576—14 4 



50 



CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 



Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I have received many letters during the last 
five or six years in which the writers undertake to secure some pro- 
tection for the fisheries in Alaska but so far nothing has been done. 
Now, I have only one other thing I want to put into the record, and 
that is official. I have here a letter from the Department of Com- 
merce, Office of the Secretary, which is dated March 25, 1914, and is 
signed by E. F. Sweet, Acting Secretary. 
The letter says: 

Department of Commerce, 

Office of the Sfcretaey, 
Washington. March 25 191 Jf. 
My Dear Congressman : In further reply to your letter of the 21st instant, 
there is transmitted herewith a list of the canneries operating in Alaska, to- 
gether with the output of each for the years 1912 and 1913. 
Very truly, yours, 

E. F. Sweet, Acting Secretary. 
Hon. James Wickersham, 

Delegate from Alaska, House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C. 

Then follows the list of salmon canneries in Alaska and the output 
of those canneries for the years 1912 and 1913. There is given in this 
list the name of the company, the home office of the companj^, the 
location of the plants, the number of cases packed in 1912, and the 
number of cases packed in 1913. 

(The matter referred to is as follows:) 



Salmon canneries in 


Alaska and output for years 1912 and 1913. 


Name of company. 


Home office. 


Location of plants. 


Cases packed. 


1912 


1913 


SOUTHEAST ALASKA. 


Seattle 


Gam bier Bay 


133,822 
34,909 
31,098 
74, 509 
86, 179 

104, 682 
65,484 
11,959 
43, 118 
22,932 
36.943 
26,222 
72,810 
45, 155 
14, 969 
19,879 
46,269 
27,715 
26,012 
76, 787 
22,231 
61, 167 
57,281 
4, 091 
80, 254 
41,359 
■ 44,414 
44,291 
.30, 554 
34,066 
8,310 

100. 666 
49, 362 
13,247 
35,650 
27, 643 


120,676 
14,996 




do 


Waterfall 2 


Alaska Pacific Fisheries 


.;...do 


Chilkoot 


21,541 


Do 


do 


Yes Bay 


74,607 

78,483 


Do 


do 


Chomley 








139,491 
82, 049 


Do 


do 


Wrangell 


Alaska Sanitary Packing Co 

Astoria & Paget Sound Canning Co. 
r. C. Bamos Co 


Seattle 


do 


18, 726 


South Bellingham 


Excursion Inlet 


30, 156 

28, 178 




do 


Canoe Pass 


(3) 




Seattle 




20, 760 






Ketchikan 


50,013 


Hawk Fish Co 


Seattle 


Hawk Inlet 


34, 720 


Hidden Inlet Canning Co 


do 


Hidden Inlet 


16,553 




..do 


Nakat Inlet 


(3) 


Hoonah Packing Co 


Port Townsend 

Seattle 


Hoonah 


31,513 






25, 166 






Kake 


20, 6.52 


Kasaan Co 


Seattle 

do 


Kasaan 


71,940 






40, 395 




do 


Roe Point 


53, 496 


Do 


.. .do 


Craig 


49, 029 




Metlakahtla 


Metlakahtla 


(3) 


Geo. T. Myers & Co 


Seattle . 


Chatham 


71, 122 


North Pacific Trading & Packing Co 
Northwestern Fisheries Co 




Klawaf'k 


40, 730 


Seattle 


Hunters Bav 


37, 323 


Do 


do 


Quadra 


.35, 162 


Do 


do 


Santa Ana 


34,397 


Do . 


.do 


Dundas Bav 


32, 526 


Oceanic Packing Co. 


do 


Waterfall 


(*) 


Pacific American Fisheries 


South Bellingham 


E.xcursion Inlet 


99,000 


Pacific Coast & Norway Packing Co. 
Pillar Bay I'af^kin" Co 


45, 067 


do 


Pillar Bav 


28, 101 




do 


Point Warde 


(^) 


Pure Food Fish Co 


Ketchikan 


Ketchikan 


26,236 



1 Each case represents forty-eight 1-pound cans. 

' In 1912, floating plant, Glory of the Seas, was operated. 



3 Not operated. 

* Combined with Alaska Fish Co. in 1913. 



CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 51 

Salmon canneries in Alaska and output for years 1912 atid 1913 — Continued. 



Name of company. 



Home office. 



Location of plants. 



Cases packed. 



1912 1913 



souTHEASt ALASKA— continued. 



Revilla Fish Products Co 

Sanborn-Cram Co 

Shakan Salmon Co 

Skowl Arm Packing Co 

St. Elias Packinc Co 

Starr-CollLuson Packins Co 

Sunny Point Packing Co 

Swift, Arthur & Co 

TakuCannini; & Cold Storage Co.... 

Tee Harbor Packing Co 

Thlinket Packing Co 

Walsh-Moore Caiminc Co 

Welding & Independent Fisheries 
Co. 

Wiese Packing Co 

Yakutat & Southern R v. Co 



Total for southeast Alaska. 



CENTRAL ALASKA. 



Alaska Packers' Association 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Columbia River Packers' Associa- 
tion. 

Fidalgo Island Packing Co 

Kodiak Fisheries Co 

Libby, McNeil & Libby 

Northwestern I'isheries Co 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Pacific American I'isheries 

Seldov ia Salmon Co 



Total for central Alaska 

WESTEKN ALASKA. 

Alaska Fishermen's Packing Co... 

Do 

Alaska Packers' Association 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Alaska-Portland Packers' 
Association. 

Alaska Salmon Co 

Bristol Bay Packing Co 

Columbia River Packers' Associa- 
tion. 

Midnight Sun Packing Co 

Naknek Packing Co 

North Alaska Salmon Co 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Northwestern Fisheries Co 

Pacific American Fisheries 

Red Salmon Canning Co 



Total for western Alaska. 



Ketchikan 

South Bend, Wash... 

Seattle 

....do 

....do 

Portland 

Ketchikan 

Seattle 

....do 

Port Blakeley, Wash. 

Portland 

Seattle ;.. 

do 



.do. 
.do. 



Ketchikan 

Burnett Inlet 

Shakan 

Skowl Arm 

Dry Bay 

Moira Sound 

Chomley 

Ileceta island 

Taku Harbor 

Tee Harbor 

Funter Bay 

Ward Cove 

Ship Wm. H.Smith. 



Rose Inlet. 

Yakutat. . . 



San Francisco. 

do 

do 

do 

Astoria 



Kasilof 

Larsen Bay 

Alitak 

Chignik 

....'do 



Anacortes 

Seattle 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

South Bellingham. 
Seattle 



Port Graham. 

Kodiak 

Kenai 

Orca 

Kenai 

Uyak 

Cliignik 

King Cove. . . 
Seldovia 



Astoria 

do 

San Francisco. 

do 

do 

do 

Portland 



San Francisco. 

do 

Astoria 



Nushaeak Bay. . 
Kvichak Bay". . 
Nushagak Bay. 
Kvichak River. 
Naknek River.. 
Ugaguk River.. 
Nushagak Bay. 



Wood River 

Kvichak Bay . . 
Nushagak Bay. 



4 in 
22, 697 
63,432 
16,6.33 
16, .579 
11,489 
21,036 

8,069 
50, 131 
38,371 
107,157 

7, COS 
IS, 014 

49,547 
40, .583 



0) 

32, 750 
51,639 
14,140 
(') 

16, 870 
16, 665 
(') 

36, 780 
30,508 
109, 544 
9,177 
0) 

40,336 
51,675 



2,033,648 



1,782,898 



8 66,054 

100,945 

25,513 

47,513 

43, 197 

29,856 
9,673 
34,091 
56, 150 
50, 216 
51, 187 
45,032 
43,052 
22,583 



< 37,098 
68,345 
25,935 
26, 479 
37,504 

26,796 
23,801 
25,430 
45,836 
27,982 
31,651 
26, 100 
36,667 
7,625 



625,062 



447,249 



Seattle 

San Francisco 

do 

do , 

do 

do 

Seattle 

South Bellingham. 
San Francisco 



Kotsebue Sound. 

Naknek River 

Nushagak Bay... 
Kvichak River... 
Lockanok River. 

Ugaguk River 

Nu-shagak Bay... 

Port Moller 

Ugashik River... 



46,3.33 
40, 782 
178,342 

' 288, 538 
50,350 
75, 761 

29,700 
52,000 
45, 459 

7 602 
88, 853 
32,127 
70,323 
63,421 
22, 696 
43,058 
(') 
42,384 



47,353 

39, 823 

5 185,316 

5 207, 627 

6 298,963 

44,328 
82, 070 

35,222 
55, S90 
55, 126 

8 20 
, 98,052 
37,294 
79, 335 
77, 738 
28, 774 
45, 877 
44,149 
9 41,019 



1,395,931 



1,509,038 



1 Not operated. 

2 Operated in 1913 as mild-cure station only; firm name changed to Swift-Arthur-Crosby Co. 

3 Also packed 45 cases of Dolly Varden trout. 
* Also packed 54 cases of Dolly Varden trout. 

5 Two canneries. 

6 Three canneries. 

7 Also packed 1,326 cases Dolly Varden trout. 

8 .\Iso pacirec! 70:) cases Dolly Varden trout. 

9 Also packed 75 cases Dolly Varden trout. 



52 



CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA, 



Salmon canneries in Alaska and output for years 1912 and 1913 — Continued. 

RECAPITULATION. 





1912 


1913 


Canneries operated: 

Southeast Alaska 


51 
14 
22 


42 


Central Alaska 


14 


Western Alaska 


23 






Total operated 


87 


79 






Total cases salmon packed 


4,054,641 


3,739,185 





This table shows that the total number of cases in southeastern 
Alaska in 1912 was 2,033,648, while the total number of cases packed 
in southeastern Alaska in 1913 was 1,728,898, a decrease of 250,750 
cases. The table also shows that the total number of cases packed in 
central Alaska in 1912 was 625,062, and the total number of cases 
packed in central Alaska in 1913 was 447,249, a decrease of 177,813 
cases, while in western Alaska, according" to this table, the total 
number of cases packed in 1912 was 1,395,931, while the total of cases 
packed in western Alaska in 1913 was 1,509,038, an increase of 
113,107 cases. 

According to the recapitulation here this table shows that the total 
amount of salmon packed in Alaska in 1912 was 4,054,641 cases, and 
in 1913, 3,739,185, a total loss for the year of 315,456 cases. 

In this statement in the Pacific Fisherman showing the pack 6i 
salmon for 1913, it appears that around Puget Sound there were 
put up 2,583,463 cases. The output on the Columbia River, as 
shown by this, was 4,244; the output in California was 6,776; 
the output on the Sacramento Eiver was 950; and the output 
in Alaska w^as 3,646,000; the output of British Columbia was 
1,590,000. There was a total output of 8,063,447 cases of salmon of 48 
pounds to the case, of which Alaska put up 3,646,000 cases, or almost 
50 per cent of the total amount of salmon canned on the Pacific 
coast, A gentleman stated the other day to the Committee on the 
Public Lands of the House in regard to the halibut fisheries at 
Ketchikan, that three-quarters of all the halibut sold on the Atlantic 
coast came from Alaska. There is the greatest food supply in the 
world out there — -that is, of fish — if they could only be protected and 
preserved. 

The only point I have to make this morning is against the con- 
tinuance of this matter and against any further delay. That has been 
the trouble all the time. These gentlemen claim they can not get here 
except at certain seasons of the year, I have never seen anybody 
here except the gentlemen who are here now, with the exception of 
Capt. Moser. With that exception I think you see all here now 
whom you are going to see, all of them you will ever see. 

Their whole object is to postpone and delay and prevent the pas- 
sage of legislation by Congress for the protection of these fisheries 
in Alaska. Why? Because now there is a grab going on out there 
for fish. There are so many canneries that there is a great deal of 
competition among them. Everybody is grabbing after fish. The 
law is fixed to suit them ; they can take all they want, and it does not 
cost them much to do it. If they can just be left in a position where 



CHAPTEKS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 53 

they have absohite control of all the fisheries in Alaska, they will take 
care to get their share of those fish. 

Mr. Watkins. I would like Judge Wickersham to explain how 
the provisions of this bill will protect that fishing industry ? 

Mr. Wickersham. This bill has been laid aside by the committee 
and is not to be taken up any further this session. The provisions of 
this bill would not do that. The provisions of this bill simply im- 
poses a reasonable tax on salmon canners in Alaska for the support 
of the Government there; that is all. This bill would not do what 
you suggest. 

Another bill would have to be introduced. A bill is before Con- 
gress — or at least it was before the last Congress^which would 
have the effect, to some extent at least, of protecting these fisheries. 

The Chairman. I will state here that we have before this com- 
mittee a bill (H. K. 153) for the protection and regulation of the 
fisheries of Alaska. 

Mr. Wickersham. That was the original bill introduced in the 
Senate and not the bill which the Senate committee finally agreed 
upon. 

The Chairman. We are dealing with the general proposition, and 
the question before the committee now is as to whether or not we 
shall take the matter up now and proceed with it, or wait for fur- 
their information and wait for the action of the Bureau of Fisheries, 
the Commissioner of Fisheries, and also, incidentally, for the report 
to be made by Dr. Jones, the Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries. 
Dr. Jones is here now, and upon that proposition. Dr. Jones, as to 
whether we should take the matter up now and proceed with it, or 
wait for further information, we will be glad to have your statement. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN C. F. CURRY, A REPESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 

Mr. Curry. Before Dr. Jones presents his proposition, I would 
like to say a word or two in regard to this matter. 

Of course, we know that all of this sort of fishing in the United 
States is the deep-sea fishing with power boats, with pound-net traps 
alongshore in the mouths of the rivers. Whether or not that ought 
to be stopped I do not know. It looks to me now as if it ought to 
be limited to some extent. Personally I am willing to take the 
judgment of the commissioner, and when the commissioner is ready 
to report I will be guided to great extent by his report. 

This is a matter of a great deal of importance to the people on the 
Atlantic coast and to the people on the Pacific coast and to the peo- 
ple of the United States in general, as to the food supply of fish, 
how it is being handled, and things of that sort. I know about the 
Sacramento Eiver situation, and I know it is not the fisheries in the 
Sacramento which has depleted the supply of salmon in that river. 

The salmon like clean water. For a great many years, until re- 
cently, the cities along the Sacramento River used to empty all their 
sewers into that river. That was stopped by law, because it was det- 
rimental to the health of the citizens as well as the fish. The Sacra- 
mento River is the fourth in commercial importance in the United 
States. A great many boats go up and down that river. They use 
oil instead of coal for power. They used to discharge the oil on the 



54 CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

river, and the salmon could not stand that. That has been stopped 
by law. Then came the reclamation of the land, and then the water 
of the river was used for irrigation, and then there was the use of 
the waters from the headwaters of the Sacramento for power plants, 
and it became necessary to put obstructions in the river so that the 
fish could not get to the spawning grounds. Last year we put into 
the Sacramento 400,000,000 small salmon fry. We tound they could 
not be put into the headwaters of the river, and so we have a substa- 
tion hatchery at Sacramento city and we put them in there to see 
whether the fish could get down and out into the stream. 

The Pacific salmon are different from the salmon on the Atlantic 
coast. After they spawn they die. They never go back to sea. We 
have thought out there that if we save enough for spawning pur- 
poses, the rest might as well be caught for food consumption. 

In all of California, particularly on the Sacramento Kiver, they 
do not permit any fish to be caught on Saturday and Sunday. They 
stop the catching of fish two days in the week by any means, except, 
of course, bj^ individuals by hook and line. In addition to that, there 
are 15 days in the latter part of the year — either in November or 
December, I am not sure which — when no fishing at all is permitted. 

So it is the conditions which have depleted the fish in the Sacra- 
mento Eiver. And yet the Sacramento River is a great salmon 
stream. We do not can much salmon on the Sacramento, but we 
salt immense quantities. The salmon in Alaska are the same as they 
are in California. They are the same kind of salmon. They go to 
sea and at the end of three or four years they come back to the 
spawning grounds. After they spawn they all die. 

I am as much interested as anyone in seeing the food supply con- 
served, and the salmon is a food supply not only for California, 
but it is one of the foods that has not increased in price, and it is 
a nourishing food and a healthful food. You can buy it in Wash- 
ington now for the same price you could for the last 10 years. 

I do not believe if the gentlemen would give their testimony that 
we would be ready to act until we heard from the Bureau of 
Fisheries ; until we had the report of the commissioner or Dr. Jones's 
report. I do not see how it is proposed to assist us in determining 
whether section 52 of this act should be validated. It is possible 
that we may want to hear these gentlemen now rather than have 
them return. I do not believe in delay ; as you know, I would like 
to have the committee act as quickly as it is feasible to act in this 
matter. Unless the department is ready to give us advice, I do 
not think we ought to go ahead and act just simply on the state- 
ments of the gentlemen who are here. However, I Avill be guided 
by the judgment of the members of the committee. I simply wanted 
to make a statement in reference to the salmon streams. Every 
fourth year there is a great return of the salmon to the spawning 
grounds, but after that, each year that is decreased. Whether there 
is coming to be less and less in Alaska I do not know. I do know the 
reason why there are not so many salmon in the Sacramento River 
as there used to be, and I have explained that to the committee. 

The Chairman. We would like to hear Dr. Jones this morning, 
but before Dr. Jones proceeds, I think Mr. Dorr, of Seattle, desires 
to make a short statement. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 55 

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES W. DORR, OF SEATTLE, WASH., 
REPRESENTING ALASKAN CANNERIES. 

The Chairman. Will you please state your name, your residence, 
and whom you represent^ 

Mr. Dorr. My name is Charles W. Dorr ; I live at Seattle, Wash. ; 
and I am representing a large number of Alaskan salmon canneries. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been inter- 
ested in this subject for a number of years, and I have been here 
before, as Judge Wickersham has intimated, at previous hearings. 

The first law, I think, tending to regulate the fisheries of Alaska 
was adopted by Congress in 1896. Ten years after that there was a 
comprehensive bill put through, and that is the present law in Alaska. 

I was then here representing, as I do now, fishing interests in 
Alaska. I was here about two months at that time. We had some 
extended hearings before the House Committee on Territories, and 
finally it was suggested by the then chairman of this committee that 
the matter referred to the Department of Commerce and Labor, as it 
was then constituted, and the department be requested, and the rep- 
resentatives of the fishing interests, to go over this matter together, 
and endeavor, if they could, to arrive at some common understanding 
with relation to the various provisions that ought to be included in 
a general fishing act. 

It is as much to the interest, and I think I may say more to the 
interest, of the men who have their capital invested there in can- 
neries and shop equipment, which has cost them a good many mil- 
lions of dollars, to preserve that industry, as it is to the interest of 
any other class of people. We have always realized that, and in 
1906 we met the representatives of the Department of Commerce and 
Labor and discussed these various phases of the matter with them in 
a frank and open manner, and it resulted in a bill coming back to 
the Committee on Territories of the House as it was then consti- 
tuted, that bill having been agreed to at the joint conference which 
lasted about two weeks, and that bill" became a law without any 
further amendment or further suggestion by the committee, the com- 
mittee being satisfied with it as it was presented. That was in 1906, 
Mr. Chairman, and it has remained the law to this time. 

In 1912 the counterpart of this bill, No. 153, was introduced in 
both Houses. It came into the Senate as the so-called Jones bill, 
known and identified as Senate bill No. 5856. It came into the House 
by the introduction of the same bill by Mr. Flood. We had hear- 
ings at the time before the Senate committee; at the request of the 
committee we came on here. I was here again at that time, and a 
good many of the other gentlemen were here, and we spent about 
two months on these hearings, also in 1913, which are included in 
the book which Judge Wickersham has presented, showing the 
volume of those hearings. We were again referred back to the 
Department of Commerce and Labor. The bill you have before you, 
Mr. Chairman, which is a tentative bill, is the result of that second 
conference in 1913. That tentative bill was drawn after most care- 
ful deliberation by the Bureau of Fisheries and the various gentle- 
men representing the fishing industry here at that time. Unfortu- 
nately that bill failed of passage. We were satisfied with it; at 



56 CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

least we conceded many points, and they conceded some things to us, 
and we made it a compromise bill. 

Mr. WicKERSHAM. Was the bill ever reported in either House? 

Mr. Dorr. No, sir. It came back to the Committee on Fisheries 
in the Senate, but owing to the press of business, as I understood it, 
it never reached a report, and it died with the last Congress. How- 
ever, we came back a year ago and had some further hearings. That 
was before the bill was finally drafted. 

Now, there has never been in the past, and there is not now, gentle- 
men of the committee, any demand on our part for delay. We do 
not ask for any delay at all. There never has been in the past, and 
there is not now any demand for delay, except such proper delay 
in this instance as I am going to call to your attention in regard to 
this present bill. 

We were asked to come here this time not with respect to this 
fishing bill. No. 153. We did not know there was any disposition 
on the part of the committee or on the part of anyone else to take 
that bill up at this time. 

It was not until 48 hours ago that we learned that there was any 
desire on the part of anyone to take up bill No. 153 at this time. We 
did come here to discuss the bill No. 11740, because that affects 
our taxes to such an extent that we felt it was necessary and proper 
for us to come before you gentlemen as members of the committee 
having jurisdiction of this bill, and explain the reasons which ap- 
peared to us to be good why the act of the Legislature of the Terri- 
tory of Alaska embodied in chapter 52 should not be ratified by 
Congress. 

I have not understood from anything Judge Wickersham has said 
in his opening statement that the question of taxes is now involved. 
He has talked entirely upon the question of regulation. The bill 
that is now a law, v/hich w^as passed in 1906, has been found to be 
reasonably sufficient by the representatives of the Department of 
Commerce. We discussed with the representatives of that depart- 
ment the Jones bill and the original Flood bill, which resulted in the 
composition bill I have last referred to, the one we all agreed to. 

Finally, Mr. Charman, to go into this general question as to 
whether the traps shall exist, where they shall be built, how they 
should be built, and all the multiplicity of things that are involved 
in the whole fishing subject — I say it is not fair to us to bring us here 
on a question of this kind, on a 48-hour notice, with our fishermen in 
Alaska, or on their way there at this season of the year, if you in- 
tend to go into this whole subject de novo. If it is simply a ques- 
tion in regard to section 1 of the bill H. K. 11740, we are ready on 
that. We were under the impression that the matter had been dis- 
posed of heretofore by the committee, and we do not think that this 
IS an opportune time, from our standpoint or from the standpoint of 
the Government, which is about to make a reinvestigation of the 
fisheries in Alaska, to take up the general consideration of all these 
various details which are involved in the main fisheries questions. 

There is no urgent need for it. We are prepared to show that 
Judge Wickersham is mistaken in many of the statements he has 
assumed to make this morning. We want to do that in a way that 



OHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 57 

will be convincing to you. We do not want you to take our indi- 
vidual statements as the representatives of the men who are up 
there, but rather to hear some of them personally, and to get the 
knowledge at first hand, if you may. We are prepared to make our 
own statements in regard to this matter, and to make our arguments 
in regard to it, with your permission, at the appropriate time, and 
we hope that Congress will deal with the whole subject in such a 
thorough and comprehensive manner that a new bill need not be 
introduced in the next few years, after the existing laws have been 
revised after due deliberation. ^ 

It is a great industry, as Judge Wickersham has said, a great in- 
dustry. Capt. Moser testified at these hearings two years ago, and 
he frankly stated that while in 1898 he had made these statements re- 
ferred to this morning by Judge Wickersham, that experience and 
observation had since convinced him that his prophecies were wrong, 
that these streams were not depleted then nor are they now. I do 
not desire at this time to discuss the merits of the question or to 
answer Judge Wickersham on the merits of the proposition at all. 

Mr. Watkins. With you permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to ask in regard to sections 1 and 2. What is the difference between 
those two sections? 

The Chairman. Judge, the committee acted upon this bill when 
you were away. It struck out the first section and reported this 
second section, and that deals with the question providing for the 
collection of taxes in Alaska. 

Mr. Dorr. To which we made no objection. This bill 153, how- 
ever, involves every possible phase of the fishery question, including 
all manner of regulations, and we would like very much, if it is con- 
sistent with the views of this committee, and if it meets with the ap- 
proval of the Department of Commerce, that this general hearing 
might be deferred until we can get together fully prepared. We 
have come a long distance, of course, 3,000 miles, but we are willing 
to come again, and I think that you must all agree with me that the 
appropriate time to discuss a matter of this kind comprehensively is 
in the wintertime when our men are available, rather than when 
they are in Alaska beyond our reach. 

Mr. Curry. May I ask a question? 

Mr. Dorr. Certainly. 

Mr. Curry. I do not know what you represent up there. Is it the 
Alaska Packers' Association? 

Mr. Dorr. No, sir ; I do not represent the Alaska Packers' Associa - 
tion (Avhich is a corporation). I represent the Association of 
Alaska Salmon Packers. Avhich is composed of a great many of 
the smaller packers — independent packers. There is no Fish Trust 
in Alaska. Judge Wickersham is mistaken about that. 

Mr. Curry. I would like to know if there are hatcheries main- 
tained in Alaska for the propagation of salmon ? 

Mr. Dorr. There are five private hatcheries and two Government 
hatcheries now maintained in Alaska. Of the five, two of them are 
owned and operated b}^ the Alaska Packers' Association, of San 
Francisco, and the other three by other salmon canners outside of 
the association. 

Mr. Curry. They are trying to keep up the supply. 



58 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OP THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 

Mr. Dorr. They are trying to do that very thing, Mr. Curry, and 
they built those hatcheries under the direction and orders of the 
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States when he had juris- 
diction over that subject. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. That was built before he had jurisdiction — 
before the act of 1896 was passed. 

Mr. Dorr. The Secretary of the Treasury had jurisdiction before 
the Department of Commerce and Labor was organized. 

Mr. Johnson. You spoke of not being prepared with witnesses 
now, in view of the fact that the fishing season is on. What time 
does it close? 

Mr. Dorr. They will be returning about November. 

Mr. Johnson. Would it be impossible to get them here during this 
session of Congress? 

Mr. Dorr. Yes, sir; it would be a physical impossibility. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. None of them have gone yet? 

Mr. Dorr. Oh, yes. 

Mr. WiCKERSHAM. I thought they did not go until May. 

Mr. Dorr. Oh, yes ; many of the ships are already off now. 

STATEMENT OF MR. E. LESTER JONES. 

The Chairman. State your official position, Mr. Jones. 

Mr. Jones. I am United States Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries, 
second in authority in the bureau. As already outlined in my letter 
to the chairman of this committee, the Secretary has placed under 
me the direct supervision of all the fisheries, the fur-bearing animals, 
and the fur-seal islands of Alaska. 

At times a number of Members of Congress have asked the Secre- 
tary of Commerce to send some one to Alaska who would with his 
own eyes see the whole work of the fisheries. Before that time the 
Secretary had talked with me at length in reference to this matter, 
and, although he had not made it public, he had practically author- 
ized me to make this trip this summer. In our talk it was decided 
that I should visit every hatchery, as many of the canneries as seemed 
necessary, the one fertilizer factory, the salteries, halibut stations, 
herring stations, etc. My plan is already outlined, my itinerary 
practically made, and I am thoroughly alive to the situation. I can 
not impress on you gentlemen too strongly the fact that I realize 
the great problem and the great work that is before me, and I go 
into it with absolutely no prejudice in my mind. I realize the oppor- 
tunity offered me to do something real and beneficial for the Gov- 
ernment and for the information of Congress, and I will report con- 
ditions just as they are. 

I talked this matter over with Judge Wickersham some time ago, 
and I understand he is in thorough accord with my trip and urged 
that every possible assistance be given me by the Secretary, furnish- 
ing me with the proper vessel, etc., so that I would not be hampered 
in any way. I believe, further, that Judge Wickersham is in favor 
of the Government having jurisdiction over the fisheries as well as 
the fur seals. If that be the case — and I think I am right — I am sure 
he will trust me enough to carry out the objects and motives of this 
trip and believe that I will make a fair, full, and comprehensive 
report of my trip there this summer. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 59 

Mr. Oglesby. In the hearing this morning I took some of the 
statements to mean a sort of warning to you, that they knew you were 
going to come out there. 

Mr, WiCKERSHAM. That did not imply any distrust in Dr. Jones, 
but in the fellows out there who intended to keep things out of his 
sight. 

Mr. Jones. I did not take it so. I think it is as much my duty to 
see that the fishing interests have justice as it is to make suggestions 
that would prove detrimental to them, and I will try to do my duty 
with as even a balance as I possibly can. 

I think it would be obviously improper for me at this time to go 
into details as to what I believe ought to be done. It would destroy 
largely the object of my trip. I fully realize, from my experience 
in studying the fishing industry on the Atlantic Coast and in the 
inland States, that lots of these regulations might apply to the waters 
of Alaska, but I am going there to see these things before I suggest. 

Now, another question. The trouble has been largely, in the past, 
that too many men, in giving information to committees of Con- 
gress — and I am speaking now partly of the bureau — have only been 
able to take into consideration smatterings of this great fishery ques- 
tion. It is the object of Secretary Redfield that I see every feature 
of this work, so that when the chairman or members of these com- 
mittees call for information I am supposed to know — and I will try 
to know, if I can carry out the plans — every point relative to these 
questions, and there will be no necessity of calling on so many as 
in the past. 

Mr. Oglesby. How long do you expect to stay up there ? 

Mr. Jones. Approximately five months. That is about the season, 
and I am regulating my trip so as to fit in at opportune times at the 
different places. I do not Imow that I have much else to say. I 
earnestly request, if it meets with your approval, sir, and the ap- 
proval of the committee, that jow postpone action on this matter. 
I am sure it is the wish of the Secretary, because that is the object 
of my trip. Regarding this bill 153. Mr. Flood, its patron, and who 
knows me quite well, sent for me. I took the matter up with refer- 
ence to nxy trip, and he thoroughly approves of it; and he said he 
was in favor of postponing any action on his bill until after I 
returned. 

Mr. Guernsey. May I ask, Doctor, if you have had any experience 
at all with the practical working of this fisheries industry? 

Mr. Jones. I have had about 20 years' experience in the practical 
side of the work. I am not a scientist by education— I never took 
that feature of the work up — but the science I have acquired has 
been from practical contact with the fishing interests, and I also 
have been aoroad and studied some of the conditions there, which 
has helped me. I have been identified with this bureau about a 
year. 

Mr. Johnson. Does the Government have representatives in 
Alaska on the ground now, looking after the fishing interests of 
Alaska there? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, sir; we have one agent and several inspectors 
and wardens. In defense of the bureau in the past I will say the 
fact that we have not given as much attention to the work as we 
should have given is entirely on account of the inadequate personnel, 



60 CHAPTEES 52 AND 54 OP THE ACTS OP ALASKA. 

and the fact that we had no vessels with which to patrol the waters 
in that great Territory. 

Mr. Johnson. As the Government increases its activities in all 
lines of the business, will not that same complaint come continuously 
from all departments and all bureaus? 

Mr. Jones. We have asked in the sundry civil bill, which is now 
before the Appropriations Committee of the House, for additional 
inspectors and wardens ; also for a sum to build three boats. If that 
is granted — and it is so essential that it should be — it will make our 
service very much more efficient and help us to carry on the work of 
propogation, inspection, and work in general to a greater and more 
satisfactory degree. 

The Chairman. We are very glad to have had you with us and to 
have heard your statement in regard to this matter. Now, gentlemen 
of the committee, I am ready to hear any suggestion or motion that 
you may desire to make. 

Mr. Watkins. In view of Dr. Jones's statement, I think we ought 
to defer the matter until he returns. 

Mr. Oglesby. I would like to saj'^ this : There is one feature I 
would like to bring before the committee in executive session at 
such time as it may suggest. I do not know that it would act in 
accordance with any suggestion I might make, but at the same time 
there is some information I would like to have as to the general 
feeling of the committee on the subject. 

Mr. Wickersham. The only thing I desire to say before Dr. Jones 
leaves is that he will go up to Alaska and be gone all summer. That 
postpones any action in regard to these fisheries until the next session 
in December. That will be the short session. Now, I realize that 
if the Fisheries Bureau — if the Secretary of Commerce — takes hold 
of the matter industriously in December, January, and February 
we might get a bill through ; but it will require the strong, active sup- 
port of the Secretary of Commerce and the Bureau of Fisheries to 
get legislation for the protection of these fisheries in Alaska. I call 
attention to that because I am very earnestly in favor of it. 

The Chairman. In that connection I would suggest that if the 
deputy commissioner is ready to make his report, which, we think 
he will be, before the December session, that we will have from that 
time until the adjournment in March to prepare and pass a bill on 
this subject. Of course, this committee ought to be diligent and be 
ready to go to work on this matter forthwith. It will be a matter 
that will call for a good deal of investigation and probably many 
hearings, and we should be ready to go to work on this matter at the 
beginning of the session and be ready to have the hearings in 
December and January. These gentlemen say the}'^ desire to be 
heard in the wintertime — during the months of December and Jan- 
uary — and we should accommodate them. 

Mr. Wickersham. Now that Mr. Britton, Mr. McCord, Mr. Dorr, 
the secretary of the Alaska Packers' Association, and the other gentle- 
men representing the various Alaska canneries are here, I think 
they ought to take notice that this matter will come up, if not now, 
at least in December, and they ought to be here, and I want the 
record to show that they are given that notice. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 61 

The Chairman. The committee will take the matter up as soon as 
possible, and these gentlemen will understand that we will take the 
matter up forthwith as soon as practical, 

Mr. Britton. Mr. Wickersham has put in the record several times 
that the fishing industries have been unduly delaying this matter. I 
want to state in the record that the fishing industries have been 
willing at all times to attend the committee meetings in Washington 
and help through sensible legislation on this subject. They have had 
their representatives here time and time again, whenever the com- 
mittee wanted them, and they are ready now to appear before you 
whenever you want them. They suggest the best time is in the win- 
ter, when the men are available. I do not want the record to show 
they have not been diligent and ready to appear. 

Mr. Wickersham. Do I understand December will be satisfactory 
to you, if the matter is not taken up now ? 

Mr. Brixton. Yes; that will be satisfactory. 

(The committee thereupon adjourned.) 



Committee on the Territories, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday, April 7, 191I^. 

At a meeting of the committee at 10.30 a. m., Hon William C. 
Houston presiding, Mr. Johnson asked permission to add to the re- 
port of the hearings as held on Friday, April 3, certain letters and 
telegrams with reference to a telegram presented by him on March 
31, 1914, and signed as follows : 

P. B. Gill, secretary Halibut Fishermen's Union of the Pacific 
(containing 1,500 members). 

P. E. Olsen, agent Alaska Fishermen's Union (containing 2,500 
members) . 

New Seattle Chamber of Commerce, C. B. Yandell, secretary. 

Mr. Johnson. The statement having been made in these hearings 
that the Alaska Fishermen's Union is a dummy and a paper union, I 
desire to present certain statements to the contrary. I have asked 
the oiRcers of the American Federation of Labor for statements with 
regard to this union, and as soon as replies are received I desire to 
add them to the reports of the hearings held April 3. 

There was no objection. 

(The telegrams and correspondence follow:) 

April 7, 1914. 
Hon. William E. Humphrey, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Colleague : During the hearings before tlie House Committee on 
Territories on a bill to validate certain changes of the legislation of the Terri- 
tory of Alaska, I introduced a joint telegram, signed by secretary of the Hali- 
but Fishermen's Union of the Pacific and by the Seattle agent- of the Alaska 
Fishermen's Union. 

The telegram states that the organization first mentioned has 1,500 members 
and the second organization 2,500 members. The weight of these telegrams was 
questioned by Delegate Wickersham, and at the continued hearings held one 
weeks ago, Mr. Wickersham said : 

"There are some telegrams here from people who claim to be members of 
the Alaska Fishermen's Union in Seattle and San Francisco. There is no such 
thing as an Alaska Fishermen's Union in that country except as a dummy. 



62 CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 

* * * It is very easy to get up an Alaska Fisliermeu's Union and send a tele- 
gram down here to Washington." 

I would like to have some information about these unions. I know P. B. Gill 
and of his connection with the Seamen's Union, and have always understood 
that there were actual agencies of the fishermen's unions in Seattle, Astoria, 
and elsewhere. Perhaps j-ou can inform me. I am also asking Frank Morrison, 
secretary of the American Federation of Labor, in regard to this matter. 
Yours, cordially, 

Albert Johnson. 

April 7, 1914. 
Hon. Samuel Gompers, 

President American Federation of Lahor, 

Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Gompers : My colleague, INIr. Johnson, has written to me concern- 
ing the Alaska P^ishermen's Union and the Halibut Fishermen's Union, asking 
particularly if these organizations are affiliated with your federation. I 
know of no better way to secure the information than the reference of his letter 
to you. 

Yours, sincerely, 

W. E. Humphrey. 



American Federation of Labor, 

Washington, D. C, April 9, 1914. 
Hon. W. E. Humphrey, 

Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Humphrey : Your letter of April 7 to President Gompers re- 
ceived, also your communication from Hon. Albert Johnson and communica- 
tion to Mr. Johnson with resolution attached. 

I submitted this matter to Andrew Furuseth, who represents the seamen, 
and he furnished me a reply in which he states that the Alaska Fishermen's 
Union is a bona fide organization afliliated to the International Seamen's Union 
of America, and has a membership of 3,000 members. Attached find copy of 
his communication to me, which covers this subject. 

I am herewith returning the inclosures which accompanied your letter. 
Yours, very truly, 

Frank Morrison, 
Secretary American Federation of Labor. 



American Federation of Labor, 

Washington, D. C, April 9, 19U. 
Hon. Albert Johnson, 

Washington, D. O. 
My Dear Mr. Johnson : You will recollect we had a partial conversation 
with President Furuseth the other evening at the committee room. I herewith 
attach copy of Mr. Furuseth's letter, which demonstrates clearly that the 
Alaska Fishermen's Union is a bona fide organization with 3,000 members, 
affiliated to the International Seamen's Union, which holds a charter from the 
American Federation of Labor. 
Yours, very truly, 

Frank Morrison, 
Secretary American Federation of Lahor. 



International Seamen's Union of America, 

April 8, 191 'j. 
Frank Morrison, 

Secretary American Federation of Lahor, 

Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir and Brother: Yours of the 7th instant inclosing a resolution 
adopted by the San Francisco Labor Council relative to H. R. 11740, and in- 
quiring about the standing of the Alaska Fishermen's Union, has been i-eceived. 



CHAPTERS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 63 

The Alaksa Fishermen's Union is an old organization with headquarters at 
San Francisco, and branches at Astoria, Oi'eg., and Seattle, Wash. It has a 
membership of about 3,000, and is affiliated to the International Seamen's Union 
of America. They are organized for mutual [irotection and to regulate the hours 
of labor, compensation, and the conditions of employment while fishing salmon 
in Alaska. They leave San Francisco, Astoria, and Seattle in the spring and 
return in the fail along with the catch. Some of their members live in Alaska 
all the time. They have just completed a three-year agreement with the 
cannery owners, and have entered into another that is to last four years.. 
These agreements are entered into through a committee elected by the union 
and such representatives as are selected by the employers. The committee of 
the union reports back and adoption or rejection of the agreement is acted upon 
by secret ballot. 

Probably about one-third of them are sailors and members of the Sailors' 
Union of the Pacific ; they go to Alaska fishing in the summer and work as 
sailors on coasting vessels during the winter. 

Hoping that this information will satisfy Representatives Curry and Johnson, 
I am, 

Fraternally, yours, 

Andrew Furuseth, 
President International Seamen's Union of America. 



Alaska Fishermen's Union, 
Seattle, Wash., March SO, 1914. 
Hon. Albert Johnson, 

United States Congressman, Washington, D. C. 
Honorable Sir : As per instruction of the Alaska Fishermen's Union inclosed 
herewith please find a set of resolutions which in themselves are explantory. 

The fishermen earnestly ask your favorable support of these resolutions, 
to the end that some justice may prevail. 
Respectfully and sincerely, 

P. E. Olsen, 
Agent Alaska Fishermen's Union. 



Whereas there is now pending in Congress a bill (H. R. 11740), the purpose 
of which is. as set forth in its title, " To cure defects in and to validate chap- 
ters 52 and 54 of the acts of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska, 
approved by the governor of the Territory of Alaska May 1, 1913, and for 
other purposes " ; and 

Whereas chapter 54 of the acts herein referred to provides for a poll tax upon 
male persons in the Territory of Alaska ; and 

Whereas we are informed that it is the intention of the authorities of Alaska 
to collect said poll tax from fishermen temporarily employed in the waters 
of the Territory of Alaska : Therefore be it 
Resolved, iy the Alaska Fishermen's Union, in regular meeting assembled at 

headquarters, San, Francisco, Cah, March 20, 19U, That we protest against the 

imposition of a poll tax upon fishermen temporarily employed in the waters 

of Alaska for the following reasons: 

1. Said fishermen xire not residents of Alaska. 

2. They derive no benefit from the government of Alaska. 

3. The Territory makes no provisions for their care or well-being. 

4. Said fishermen in conjunction with their employers are wholly dependent 
upon their own resources for the provisions and maintenance of the facilities 
necessary in the pursuit of their vocation and for their care during periods 
of sickness. 

5. Said fishermen are citizens and residents of the United States and as such 
are subject to the payment of poll tax and all other taxes at their respective 
places of residence ; further, be it 

Resolved, That we urge upon Congress the justice of withdrawing its approval 
of the said chapter 54 of the acts of the Legislature of the Territory of Alaska, 
as a measure at once unjust in that it would tax persons who have no voice 
in making the laws of the Territory and burdensome in that no service of any 



64 



CHAPTEKS 52 AND 54 OF THE ACTS OF ALASKA. 



kind is guaranteed by the Territory in return for the revenues thus proposed 
to be exacted from the fishermen ; further, be it 

Resolved, That copy of these resolutions be presented to each Member of 
the House of Representatives and of the United States Senate from the States 
of California, Oregon, and AYashington vsath request for favorable action there- 
on, and that approval of the act herein referred to be withheld. 



[Telegram.] 

Seattle, Wash., April 7, 19H. 
Hon. Albert Johnson. Washington, D. C: 

Signature in telegram of March IS should be P. B. Gill. Erroneously trans- 
mitted as G. B. Gill. 

Seattle Chamber of Commerce. 

STATEMENT BY DELEGATE WICKERSHAM. 

The effort in the foregoing correspondence and resolutions to give 
the San Francisco and Seattle "Alaska " Fishermen's Union a credit- 
able standing as a genuine Alaska organization is answered by the 
statements in the last series of resolutions therein. Notice how thor- 
oughly they repudiate Alaska and its government in the resolution : 

Resolved, by the Ala-t.\-a Fishermen's Union in regular meeting assembled at 
headquarters, San Franeisco, Cal., Mareh 20, lOUi, That we protest against the 
imposition of a poll tax upon fishermen temporarily employed in the waters of 
Alasl^a, for the following i-easons: 

1. Said fishermen are not residents of Alaska. 

2. They derive no benefit from the gover)iment of Alaska, etc. 

Now, what do you think of that for an "Alaska " organization? 

O 



L'BRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 869 794 6 




